c 


CONSTI- 
TUTION 
I A PRO- 

! SLAVERY  ; , • ' 

COMPACT  ..  . - • 
Madison  g . :• 

Papers 


DUKE 

UNIVERSITY 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/constitutionpros01  madi 


A PRO-SLAVERY  COMPACT. 


SELECTIONS 


FROM 

THE  MADISON  PAPERS,  &e. 


NEW  YORK: 

AMERICAN  ANTI-SLAVERY  SOCIETY. 
142  NASSAU  STREET. 


1844. 


/vi 


ftW; 3 C»  i Lj~ 


j />r&  , 

I'NT  RODUCTION. 


Evert  one  knows  that  the  “ Madison  Papers  ” contain  a Report,  from 
the  pen  of  James  Madison,  of  the  Debates  in  the  Old  Congress  of  the 
Confederation  and  in  the  Convention  which  formed  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States.  We  have  extracted  from  them,  in  these  pages,  all 
the  Debates  on  those  clauses  of  the  Constitution  which  relate  to 
slavery.  To  these  we  have  added  all  that  is  found,  on  the  same 
topic,  in  the  Debates  of  the  several  State  Conventions  which  ratified 
the  Constitution  : together  with  so  much  of  the  Speech  of  Luther 
Martin  before  the  Legislature  of  Maryland,  and  of  the  Federalist, 
as  relate  to  our  subject ; with  some  extracts,  also,  from  the  Debates  of 
! the  first  Federal  Congress  on  Slavery.  These  are  all  printed  without 
alteration,  except  that,  in  some  instances,  we  have  inserted  in  brackets, 

: after  the  name  of  a speaker,  the  name  of  the  State  from  which  he 
came.  The  notes  and  italics  are  those  of  the  original,  but  the  editor 
has  added  one  note  on  page  30th,  which  is  marked  as  his,  and  we 
have  taken  the  liberty  of  printing  in  capitals  one  sentiment  of  Rufus 
King’s,  and  two  of  James  Madison’s — a distinction  which  the  impor- 
tance of  the  statements  seemed  to  demand — otherwise  we  have 
reprinted  exactly  from  the  originals. 

These  extracts  develope  most  clearly  all  the  details  of  that  com- 
promise,” which  was  made  between  freedom  and  slavery,  in  1787; 
granting  to  the  slaveholder  distinct  privileges  and  protection  for  his 
slave  property,  in  return  for  certain  commercial  concessions  on  his 
part  toward  the  North.  They  prove  also  that  the  Nation  at  large 
were  fully  aware  of  this  bargain  at  the  time,  and  entered  into  it  wil- 
lingly and  with  open  eyes. 

We  have  added  the  late  “ Address  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery 
i Society,”  and  the  letter  of  Francis  Jackson  to  Governor  Briggs,  resign- 
ing his  commission  of  Justice  of  the  Peace — as  bold  and  honorable 


4 


protests  against  the  guilt  and  infamy  of  this  National  bargain,  and  a3 
proving  most  clearly  the  duty  of  each  individual  to  trample  it  under 
his  feet. 

The  clauses  of  the  Constitution  to  which  we  refer  as  of  a pro- 
slavery character  are  the  following: — 

Art.  1,  Sect.  2.  Representatives  and  direct  taxes  shall  be  appor- 
tioned among  the  several  States,  which  may  be  included  within  this 
Union,  according  to  their  respective  numbers,  which  shall  be  deter- 
mined by  adding  to  the  whole  number  of  free  persons,  including 
those  bound  to  service  for  a term  of  years,  and  excluding  Indians  not 
taxed,  three  fifths  of  all  other  persons. 

Art.  1,  Sect.  8.  Congress  shall  have  power  ...  to  suppress 
insurrections. 

Art.  1,  Sect.  9.  The  migration  or  importation  of  such  persons  as 
any  of  the  States  now  existing,  shall  think  proper  to  admit,  shall  not 
be  prohibited  by  the  Congress,  prior  to  the  year  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  eight:  but  a tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed  on  such  impor- 
tation, not  exceeding  ten  dollars  for  each  person. 

Art.  4.  Sec.  2.  No  person,  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State, 
under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall,  in  consequence  of 
any  law  or  regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such  service  or 
labor;  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such 
service  or  labor  may  be  due. 

Art.  4,  Sect.  4.  The  United  States  shall  guarantee  to  every  State 
in  this  Union  a republican  form  of  government ; and  shall  protect  each 
of  them  against  invasion  ; and,  on  application  of  the  legislature,  or  of 
the  executive,  (when  the  legislature  cannot  be  convened)  against 
domestic  violence. 

The  first  of  these  clauses,  relating  to  representation,  confers  on  a 
slaveholding  community  additional  political  power  for  every  slave 
held  among  them,  and  thus  tempts  them  to  continue  to  uphold  the  sys- 
tem : the  second  and  the  last,  relating  to  insurrection  and  domestic 
violence,  perfectly  innocent  in  themselves  — yet  being  made  with  the 
fact  directly  in  view  that  slavery  exists  among  us,  do  deliberately 
pledge  the  whole  national  force  against  the  unhappy  slave  if  he  imitate 
our  fathers  and  resist  oppression  — thus  making  us  partners  in  the 
guilt  of  sustaining  slavery : the  third,  relating  to  the  slave  trade, 


5 


disgraces  the  nation  by  a pledge  not  to  abolish  that  traffic  till  after 
twenty  years,  ivithout  obliging  Congress  to  do  so  even  then,  and  thus  the 
slave  trade  may  be  legalized  to-morrow  if  Congress  choose : the  fourth 
is  a promise  on  the  part  of  the  whole  Nation  to  return  fugitive  slaves 
to  their  masters,  a deed  which  God’s  law  expressly  condemns  and 
which  every  noble  feeling  of  our  nature  repudiates  with  loathing  and 
contempt. 

These  are  the  articles  of  the  “ Compromise,”  so  much  talked  of, 
between  the  North  and  South. 

We  do  not  produce  the  extracts  which  make  up  these  pages  to 
show  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  clauses  above  cited.  For  no  man 
or  party,  of  any  authority  iu  such  matters,  has  ever  pretended  to  doubt 
to  what  subject  they  all  relate.  If  indeed  they  were  ambiguous  in 
their  terms,  a resort  to  the  history  of  those  times  would  set  the  matter 
at  rest  for  ever.  A few  persons,  to  be  sure,  of  late  years,  to  serve  the 
purposes  of  a party,  have  tried  to  prove  that  the  Constitution  makes 
no  compromise  with  slavery.  Notwithstanding  the  clear  light  of 
history ; — the  unanimous  decision  of  all  the  courts  in  the  land,  both 
State  and  Federal ; — the  action  of  Congress  and  the  State  Legisla- 
ture ; — the  constant  practice  of  the  Executive  in  all  its  branches  ; — and 
the  deliberate  acquiescence  of  the  whole  people  for  half  a century, 
still  they  contend  that  the  Nation  does  not  know  its  own  meaning, 
and  that  the  Constitution  does  not  tolerate  slavery  ! Every  candid 
mind  however  must  acknowledge  that  the  language  of  the  Constitution 
is  clear  and  explicit. 

Its  terms  are  so  broad,  it  is  said,  that  they  include  many  others 
beside  slaves,  and  hence  it  is  wisely  (!)  inferred  that  they  cannot 
include  the  slaves  themselves  ! Many  persons  beside  slaves  in  this 
country  doubtless  are  “ held  to  service  and  labor  under  the  laws  of  the 
States,”  but  that  does  not  at  all  show  that  slaves  are  not  “ held  to 
service ;”  many  persons  beside  the  slaves  may  take  part  “ in  insur- 
rections,” but  that  does  not  prove  that  when  the  slaves  rise,  the 
National  government  is  not  bound  to  put  them  down  by  force.  Such 
a thing  has  been  heard  of  before  as  one  description  including  a great 
variety  of  persons, — and  this  is  the  case  in  the  present  instance. 

But  granting  that  the  terms  of  the  Constitution  are  ambiguous  — 
that  they  are  susceptible  of  two  meanings,  if  the  unanimous,  con- 
1* 


t 


6 


current,  unbroken  practice  of  every  department  of  the  Government, 
judicial,  legislative,  and  executive,  and  the  acquiescence  of  the 
whole  people  for  fifty  years  do  not  prove  which  is  the  true  construc- 
tion, then  how  and  where  can  such  a question  ever  be  settled  ? If 
the  people  and  the  Courts  of  the  land  do  not  know  what  they  them- 
selves mean,  who  has  authority  to  settle  their  meaning  for  them  ? 

If  then  the  people  and  the  Courts  of  a country  are  to  be  allowed  to 
determine  what  their  own  laws  mean,  it  follows  that  at  this  time  and 
for  the  last,  half  century,  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  has  been, 
and  still  is,  a pro-slavery  instrument,  and  that  any  one  who  swears 
to  support  it,  swears  to  do  pro-slavery  acts,  and  violates  his  duty  both 
as  a man  and  an  abolitionist.  What  the  Constitution  may  become  a 
century  hence,  we  know  not ; we  speak  of  it  as  it  is,  and  repudiate  it 
as  it  is. 

But  the  purpose,  for  which  we  have  thrown  these  pages  before  the 
community,  is  this.  Some  men,  finding  the  nation  unanimously 
deciding  that  the  Constitution  tolerates  slavery,  have  tried  to  prove 
that  this  false  construction,  as  they  think  it,  has  been  foisted  in  upon 
the  instrument  by  the  corrupting  influence  of  slavery  itself,  tainting 
all  it  touches.  They  assert  that  the  known  anti-slavery  spirit  of  revo- 
lutionary times  never  could  have  consented  to  so  infamous  a bargain 
as  the  Constitution  is  represented  to  be,  and  has  in  its  present  hands 
become.  Now  these  pages  prove  the  melancholy  fact  that  willingly, 
with  deliberate  purpose,  our  fathers  bartered  honesty  for  gain  and 
became  partners  with  tyrants  that  they  might  share  in  the  profits  of 
their  tyranny. 

And  in  view  of  this  fact,  will  it  not  require  a very  strong  argument 
to  make  any  candid  man  believe,  that  the  bargain  which  the  fathers 
tell  us  they  meant  to  incorporate  into  the  Constitution,  and  which  the 
sous  have  always  thought  they  found  there  incorporated,  does  not 
exist  there  after  all  ? Forty  of  the  shrewdest  men  and  lawyers  in  the 
land  assemble  to  make  a bargain,  among  other  things,  about  slaves, — 
after  months  of  anxious  deliberation  they  put  it  into  writing  and  sign 
their  names  to  the  instrument, — fifty  years  roll  away,  twenty  millions 
at  least  of  their  children  pass  over  the  stage  of  life, — courts  sit  and 
pass  judgment, — parties  arise  and  struggle  fiercely  ; still  all  concur 
in  finding  in  the  Instrument  just  that  meaning  which  the  fathers  tell 


7 


us  they  intended  to  express : — must  not  he  be  a desperate  man,  who, 
after  all  this,  sets  out  to  prove  that  the  fathers  were  bunglers  aud  the 
sons  fools,  and  that  slavery  is  not  referred  to  at  all  ? 

Besides,  the  advocates  of  this  new  theory  of  the  Anti-slavery 
character  of  the  Constitution,  quote  some  portions  of  the  Madison 
Papers  in  support  of  their  views, — and  this  makes  it  proper  that  the 
community  should  hear  all  that  these  Debates  have  to  say  on  the 
subject.  The  further  we  explore  them,  the  clearer  becomes  the  fact 
that  the  Constitution  was  meant  to  be,  what  it  has  always  been 
esteemed,  a compromise  between  slavery  and  freedom. 

If  then  the  Constitution  be,  what  these  Debates  show  that  our 
fathers  intended  to  make  it,  and  what,  too,  their  descendants,  this 
nation,  say  they  did  make  it  and  agree  to  uphold, — then  we  affirm  that 
it  is  a “ covenant  with  death  and  an  agreement  with  hell,”  and  ought 
to  be  immediately  annulled. 

But  if,  on  the  contrary,  our  fathers  failed  in  their  purpose,  and  the 
Constitution  is  all  pure  and  untouched  by  slavery, — then,  Union 
itself  is  impossible,  without  guilt.  For  it  is  undeniable  that  the  fifty 
years  passed  under  this  (anti-slavery)  Constitution,  shew  us  the  slaves 
trebling  in  numbers  ; — slaveholders  monopolizing  the  offices  and 
dictating  the  policy  of  the  Government; — prostituting  the  strength 
and  influence  of  the  Nation  to  the  support  of  slavery  here  and  else- 
where ; — trampling  on  the  rights  of  the  free  States  and  making  the 
courts  of  the  country  their  tools.  To  continue  this  disastrous  alliance 
longer  is  madness.  The  trial  of  fifty  years  with  the  best  of  men  and 
the  best  of  Constitutions,  on  this  supposition,  only  proves  that  it  is 
impossible  for  free  and  slave  States  to  unite  on  any  terms,  without  all 
becoming  partners  in  the  guilt  and  responsible  for  the  sin  of  slavery. 
We  dare  not  prolong  the  experiment,  and  with  double  earnestness 
we  repeat  our  demand  upon  every  honest  man  to  join  in  the  outcry 
of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society, 

No  Union  with  Slaveholders. 


4 


* 

* 


THE  CONSTITUTION 


A 

PRO-SLAVERY  COMPACT. 


Extracts  from  Debates  in  the  Congress  of  Confederation,  preserved  by 
Thomas  Jefferson,  1776. 

On  Friday,  the  twelfth  of  July,  1776,  the  committee  appointed  to 
draw  the  articles  of  Confederation  reported  them,  and  on  the  twenty- 
second,  the  House  resolved  themselves  into  a committee  to  take 
them  into  consideration.  On  the  thirtieth  and  thirty-first  of  that 
month,  and  the  first  of  the  ensuing,  those  articles  were  debated 
which  determined  the  proportion  or  quota  of  money  which  each 
State  should  furnish  to  the  common  treasury,  and  the  manner  of 
voting  in  Congress.  The  first  of  these  articles  was  expressed  in  the 
original  draught  in  these  words  : — 

“Article  11.  All  charges  of  war  and  all  other  expenses  that  shall 
be  incurred  for  the  common  defence,  or  general  welfare,  and  allowed 
by  the  United  States  assembled,  shall  be  defrayed  out  of  a common 
treasury,  which  shall  be  supplied  by  the  several  colonies  in  pro- 
portion to  the  number  of  inhabitants  of  every  age,  sex  and  quality, 
except  Indians  not  paying  taxes,  in  each  colony,  a true  account  of 
which,  distinguishing  the  white  inhabitants,  shall  be  triennially  taken 
and  transmitted  to  the  assembly  of  the  United  States.” 

Mr.  Chase  (of  Maryland)  moved,  that  the  quotas  should  be  paid,  not 
by  the  number  of  inhabitants  of  every  condition  but  by  that  of  the 
“white  inhabitants.”  He  admitted  that  taxation  should  be  always  in 
proportion  to  property  ; that  this  was  in  theory  the  true  rule,  but 
that  from  a variety  of  difficulties  it  was  a rule  which  could  never  be 
adopted  in  practice.  The  value  of  the  property  in  every  State  could 
never  be  estimated  justly  and  equally.  Some  other  measure  for  the 
wealth  of  the  State  must  therefore  be  devised,  some  standard  referred 
to  which  would  be  more  simple.  He  considered  the  number  of  in- 
habitants as  a tolerably  good  criterion  of  property,  and  that  this  might 
always  be  obtained.  He  therefore  thought  it  the  best  mode  we  could 
adopt,  with  one  exception  only.  He  observed  that  negroes  are 
property,  and  as  such  cannot  be  distinguished  from  the  lands  or 
personalities  held  in  those  States  where  there  are  few  slaves.  That 


10 


the  surplus  of  profit  which  a Northern  farmer  is  able  to  lay  by,  lie 
invests  in  cattle,  horses,  &c.  ; whereas,  a Southern  farmer  lays  out 
that  same  surplus  in  slaves.  There  is  no  more  reason  therefore  for 
taxing  the  Southern  States  on  the  farmer’s  head  and  on  his  slave’s 
head,  than  the  Northern  ones  on  their  farmers’  heads  and  the  heads 
of  their  cattle.  That  the  method  proposed  would  therefore  tax  the 
Southern  States  according  to  their  numbers  and  their  wealth  con- 
junctly,  while  the  Northern  would  he  taxed  on  numbers  only:  that 
negroes  in  fact  should  not  be  considered  as  members  of  the  State, 
more  than  cattle,  and  that  they  have  no  more  interest  in  it. 

Mr.  John  Adams  (of  Massachusetts)  observed,  that  the  numbers  of 
people  were  taken  by  this  article  as  an  index  of  the  wealth  of  the 
State,  and  not  as  subjects  of  taxation.  That  as  to  this  matter,  it  was 
of  no  consequence  by  what  name  you  called  your  people,  whether  by 
that  of  freemen  or  of  slaves.  That  in  some  countries  the  laboring 
poor  were  called  freemen,  in  others  they  were  called  slaves  : but 
that  the  difference  as  to  the  state  was  imaginary  only.  What  matters 
it  whether  a landlord  employing  ten  laborers  on  his  farm  gives  them 
annually  as  much  money  as  will  buy  them  the  necessaries  of  life,  or 
gives  them  those  necessaries  at  short  hand?  The  ten  laborers  add 
as  much  wealth  annually  to  the  State,  increase  its  exports  as  much, 
in  the  one  case  as  the  other.  Certainly  five  hundred  freemen  produce 
no  more  profits,  no  greater  surplus  for  the  payment  of  taxes,  than  five 
hundred  slaves.  Therefore  the  State  in  which  are  the  laborers 
called  freemen,  should  he  taxed  no  more  than  that  in  which  are  those 
called  slaves.  Suppose,  by  any  extraordinary  operation  of  nature  or 
of  law,  one  half  the  laborers  of  a State  could  in  the  course  of  one  night 
be  transformed  into  slaves, — woidd  the  State  be  made  the  poorer,  or 
the  less  able  to  pay  taxes?  That  the  condition  of  the  laboring  poor 
in  most  countries, — that  of  the  fishermen,  particularly,  of  the  Northern 
States, — is  as  abject  as  that  of  slaves.  It  is  the  number  of  laborers 
which  produces  the  surplus  for  taxation  ; and  numbers,  therefore, 
indiscriminately,  are  the  fair  index  of  wealth.  That  it  is  the  use  of 
the  word  “ property”  here,  and  its  application  to  some  of  the  people  of 
the  State,  which  produces  the  fallacy.  How  does  the  Southern 
farmer  procure  slaves  ? Either  by  importation  or  by  purchase  from 
his  neighbor.  If  he  imports  a slave,  he  adds  one  to  the  number  of 
laborers  in  his  country,  and  proportionably  to  its  profits  and  abilities 
to  pay  taxes;  if  he  buys  from  his  neighbor,  it  is  only  a transfer  of  a 
laborer  from  one  farm  to  another,  which  does  not  change  the  annual 
produce  of  the  State,  and  therefore  should  not  change  its  tax  ; that  if 
a Northern  farmer  works  ten  laborers  on  his  farm,  he  can,  it  is  true, 
invest  the  surplus  of  ten  men’s  labor  in  cattle  ; but  so  may  the  Southern 
farmer  working  ten  slaves.  That  a State  of  one  hundred  thousand 
freemen  can  maintain  no  more  cattle  than  one  of  one  hundred  thous- 
and slaves;  therefore  they  have  no  more  of  that  kind  of  property. 
That  a slave  may,  indeed,  from  the  custom  of  speech,  be  more 
properly  called  the  wealth  of  his  master,  than  the  free  laborer  might 


11 


be  called  the  wealth  of  his  employer:  but  as  to  the  State,  both  were 
equally  its  wealth,  and  should  therefore  equally  add  to  the  quota  of 
its  tax. 

Mr.  Harrison  (of  Virginia)  proposed,  as  a compromise,  that  two 
slaves  should  he  counted  as  one  freeman.  He  affirmed  that  slaves 
did  not  do  as  much  work  as  freemen,  and  doubted  if  two  affected  more 
than  one.  That  this  was  proved  by  the  price  of  labor,  the  hire  of  a 
laborer  in  the  Southern  colonies  being  from  £8  to  £12,  while  in  the 
Northern  it  was  generally  £24. 

Mr  Wilson  (of  Pennsylvania)  said,  that  if  this  amendment  should 
take  place,  the  Southern  colonies  would  have  all  the  benefit  of  slaves, 
whilst  the  Northern  ones  would  bear  the  burthen.  That  slaves  increase 
the  profits  of  a State,  which  the  Southern  States  mean  to  take  to 
themselves;  that  they  also  increase  the  burthen  of  defence,  which 
would  of  course  fall  so  much  the  heavier  on  the  Northern  ; that  slaves 
occupy  the  places  of  freemen  and  eat  their  food.  Dismiss  your 
slaves,  and  freemen  will  take  their  places.  It  is  our  duty  to  lay 
every  discouragement  on  the  importation  of  slaves;  but  this  amend- 
ment would  give  the  jus  trium  libtrorum  to  him  who  would  import 
slaves.  That  other  kinds  of  property  were  pretty  equally  distributed 
through  all  the  colouies:  there  were  as  many  cattle,  horses,  and 
sheep,  in  the  North  as  the  South,  and  South  as  the  North  ; but  not 
so  as  to  slaves : that  experience  has  shown  that  those  colonies  have 
been  always  able  to  pay  most,  which  have  the  most  inhabitants, 
whether  they  be  black  or  white;  and  the  practice  of  the  Southern 
colouies  has  always  been  to  make  every  farmer  pay  poll  taxes  upon 
all  his  laborers,  whether  they  be  black  or  white.  He  acknowledged 
indeed  that  freemen  worked  the  most ; but  they  consume  the  most 
also.  They  do  not  produce  a greater  surplus  for  taxation.  The 
slave  is  neither  fed  nor  clothed  so  expensively  as  a freeman.  Again, 
white  women  are  exempted  from  labor  generally,  which  negro  women 
are  not.  In  this  then  the  Southern  States  have  an  advantage  as  the 
article  now  stands.  It  has  sometimes  been  said  that  slavery  was 
necessary,  because  the  commodities  they  raise  would  be  too  dear  for 
market  if  cultivated  by  freemen  ; but  now  it  is  said  that  the  labor  of 
the  slave  is  the  dearest. 

Mr  Payne  (of  Massachusetts)  urged  the  original  resolution  of  Con- 
gress, to  proportion  the  quotas  of  the  States  to  the  number  of  souls. 

Dr.  Witherspoon  (of  New-Jersey)  was  of  opinion,  that  the  value  of 
lands  and  houses  was  the  best  estimate  of  the  wealth  of  a nation,  and 
that  it  was  practicable  to  obtain  such  a valuation.  This  is  the  true 
barometer  of  wealth.  The  oue  now  proposed  is  imperfect  in  itself,  and 
unequal  between  the  States.  It  has  been  objected  that  negroes  eat  the 
food  of  freemen,  and  therefore  should  be  taxed.  Horses  also  eat  the 
food  of  freemen  ; therefore  they  also  should  be  taxed.  It  has  been 
said  too,  that  in  carrying  slaves  into  the  estimate  of  the  taxes 
the  State  is  to  pay,  we  do  no  more  than  those  States  themselves  do, 
who  always  take  slaves  into  the  estimate  of  the  taxes  the  individual 


12 


is  to  pay.  But  the  cases  are  not  parallel.  In  the  Southern  Colonies, 
slaves  pervade  the  whole  colony  ; but  they  do  not  pervade  the  whole 
continent.  That  as  to  the  original  resolution  of  Congress,  it  was 
temporary  only,  and  related  to  the  moneys  heretofore  emitted: 
whereas  we  are  now  entering  into  a new  compact,  and  therefore 
stand  on  original  ground. 

August  1st.  The  question  being  put,  the  amendment  proposed 
was  rejected  by  the  votes  of  New-Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Ithode- 
Island,  Connecticut,  New-York,  New-Jersey  and  Pennsylvania,  against 
those  of  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  North,  and  South  Carolina. 
Georgia  was  divided.  Vol.  I.  pp.  27-8-9,  30-1-2. 


Extracts  from  Madison's  Report  of  Debates  in  the  Congress  of  the 
Confederation. 

Tuesday,  Feb.  11,  1783. 

Mr.  Wolcott  declares  his  opinion  that  the  Confederation  ought  to 
be  amended  by  substituting  numbers  of  inhabitants  as  the  rule  ; admits 
the  difference  between  freemen  and  blacks;  and  suggests  a com- 
promise, by  including  in  the  numeration  such  blacks  only  as  were 
within  sixteen  and  sixty  years  of  age.  p.  331. 

Tuesday,  March  27,  1783. 

The  eleventh  and  twelfth  paragraphs  : 

Mr.  Wilson  (of  Pennsylvania)  was  strenuous  in  their  favor;  said 
he  was  in  Congress  when  the  Articles  of  Confederation  directing  a 
valuation  of  land  were  agreed  to;  that  it  was  the  effect  of  the  im- 
possibility of  compromising  the  different  ideas  of  the  Eastern  and 
Southern  States,  as  to  the  value  of  slaves  compared  with  the  whites, 
the  alternative  in  question. 

Mr.  Clark  (of  New  Jersey)  was  in  favor  of  them.  He  said  that 
he  was  also  in  Congress  when  this  article  was  decided  ; that  the 
Southern  States  would  have  agreed  to  numbers  in  preference  to  the 
value  of  land,  if  half  their  slaves  only  should  be  included;  but  that 
the  Eastern  States  would  not  concur  in  that  proposition. 

It  was  agreed,  on  all  sides,  that,  instead  of  fixing  the  proportion 
by  ages,  as  the  report  proposed,  it  would  be  best  to  fix  the  propor- 
tion in  absolute  numbers.  With  this  view,  and  that  the  blank  might 
be  filled  up,  the  clause  was  recommitted,  p.  421-2. 

Friday,  March  28,  1783. 

The  committee  last  mentioned,  reported  that  two  blacks  be  rated 
as  one  freeman. 

Mi.  Wolcott  (of  Connecticut)  was  for  rating  them  as  four  to  three. 
Mr.  Carroll  as  four  to  one.  Mr.  Williamson  (of  North  Carolina) 
said  he  was  principled  against  slavery  ; and  that  he  thought  slaves 
an  incumbrance  to  society,  instead  of  increasing  its  ability  to  pay 
taxes.  Mr.  Higginson  (of  Massachusetts)  as  four  to  three.  Mr.  Rut- 
ledge (of  South  Carolina)  said,  for  the  sake  of  the  object,  he  would 
agree  to  rate  slaves  as  two  to  one,  but  he  sincerely  thought  three  to 
oue  would  be  a juster  proportion.  Mr.  Holton  as  four  to  three. — 


13 


Mr.  Osgood  said  he  did  not  go  beyond  four  to  three.  On  a question 
for  rating  them  as  three  to  two,  the  votes  were,  New  Hampshire,  aye  ; 
Massachusetts,  no  ; Rhode  Island,  divided  ; Connecticut,  aye;  New 
Jersey,  aye  ; Pennsylvania,  aye  ; Delaware,  aye  ; Maryland,  no  ; Vir- 
ginia, no;  North  Carolina,  no;  South  Carolina,  no.  The  paragraph 
was  then  postponed,  by  general  consent,  some  wishing  for  further 
time  to  deliberate  on  it;  but.  it  appearing  to  be  the  general  opinion 
that  no  compromise  would  be  agreed  to. 

After  some  further  discussions  on  the  Report,  in  which  the  ne- 
cessity of  some  simple  and  practicable  rule  of  apportionment  came 
fully  into  view,  Mr.  Madison  (of  Virginia)  said  that,  in  order  to  give 
a proof  of  the  sincerity  of  his  professions  of  liberality,  he  would 
propose  that  slaves  should  be  rated  as  five  to  three.  Mr.  Rutledge 
(of  South  Carolina)  seconded  the  motion.  Mr.  Wilson  (of  Pennsyl- 
vania) said  he  would  sacrifice  his  opinion  on  this  compromise. 

Mr.  Lee  was  against  changing  the  rule,  but  gave  it  as  his  opinion 
that  two  slaves  were  not  equal  to  one  freeman. 

On  the  question  for  five  to  three,  it  passed  in  the  affirmative;  New 
Hampshire,  ave;  Massachusetts,  divided;  Rhode  Island,  no;  Con- 
necticut, no  ; New  Jersey,  aye  ; Pennsylvania,  aye;  Maryland,  aye; 
Virginia,  aye;  North  Carolina,  ave;  South  Carolina,  aye. 

A morion  was  then  made  by  Mr.  Bland,  seconded  by  Mr.  Lee,  to 
strike  out  the  clause  so  amended,  and,  on  the  question  “Shall  it 
stand,”  it  passed  in  the  negative;  New  Hampshire,  aye;  Massachu- 
setts, no  ; Rhode  Island,  no;  Connecticut,  no;  New  Jersey,  aye; 
Pennsylvania,  aye;  Delaware,  no;  Maryland,  aye;  Virginia,  aye; 
North  Carolina,  aye;  South  Carolina,  no;  so  the  clause  was  struck 
out. 

The  arguments  used  bv  those  who  were  for  rating  slaves  high 
were,  that  the  expense  of  feeding  and  clothing  them  was  as  far  be- 
low that  incident  to  freemen  as  their  industry  and  ingenuity  were 
below  those  of  freemen  ; and  that  the  warm  climate  within  which 
the  States  having  slaves  lay,  compared  with  the  rigorous  climate  and 
inferior  fertility  of  the  others,  ought  to  have  great  weight  in  the 
case;  and  that  the  exports  of  the  former  States  were  greater  than 
of  the  latter.  On  the  other  side,  it  was  said,  that  slaves  were  not 
put  to  labor  as  young  as  the  children  of  laboring  families;  that,  hav- 
ing no  interest  in  their  labor,  they  did  ns  little  as  possible,  and  omit- 
ted every  exertion  of  thought  requisite  to  facilitate  and  expedite  it; 
that  if  the  exports  of  the  States  having  slaves  exceeded  those  of  the 
others,  their  imports  were  in  proportion,  slaves  being  employed 
wholly  in  agriculture,  not  in  manufactures;  and  that,  in  fact,  the  bal- 
ance of  trade  formerly  was  much  more  against  the  Southern  States 
than  the  others. 

On  the  main  question,  New  Hampshire,  aye ; Massachusetts,  no ; 
Rhode  Island,  no;  Connecticut,  no;  New  York  (Mr.  Floyd,  aye); 
New  Jersey,  aye  ; Delaware,  no  ; Maryland,  aye  ; Virginia,  aye  ; North 
Carolina,  aye;  South  Carolina,  no.  pp.  423-4-5. 

2 


Tuesday,  April  1,  1783. 

Congress  resumed  the  Report  on  Revenue,  &c.  Mr.  Hamilton, 
who  had  been  absent  when  the  last  question  was  taken  for  substitut- 
ing numbers  in  place  of  the  value  of  land,  moved  to  reconsider  that 
vote.  He  was  seconded  by  Mr.  Osgood.  Those  who  voted  differ- 
ently from  their  former  votes  were  influenced  by  the  conviction  of 
the  necessity  of  the  change,  and  despair  on  both  sides  of  a more  fa- 
vorable rate  of  the  slaves.  The  rate  of  three-fifths  was  agreed  to 
without  opposition,  p.  430. 

Monday,  May  26. 

The  Resolutions  on  the  Journal,  instructing  the  ministers  in  Eu- 
rope to  remonstrate  against  the  carrying  off  the  negroes — also  those 
for  furloughing  the  troops — passed  unanimously,  p.  456. 


Extract  from  “ Debates  in  the  Federal  Convention ” of  1787,  for  tlie 
formation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Monday,  June  11,  1787. 

It  was  then  moved  by  Mr.  Rutledge,  seconded  by  Mr.  Butler,  to  add 
to  the  words,  “equitable  ratio  of  representation,”  at  the  end  of  the 
motion  just  agreed  to,  the  words,  “according  to  the  quotas  of  con- 
tribution.” On  motion  of  Mr.  Wilson,  seconded  by  Mr.  Pinckney, 
this  was  postponed, in  order  to  add,  after  the  words,  “equitable  rates 
of  representation,”  the  words  following:  “In  proportion  to  the 
whole  number  of  white  and  other  free  citizens  and  inhabitants  of 
every  age,  sex  and  condition,  including  those  bound  to  servitude  for 
a term  of  years,  and  three  fifths  of  all  other  persons  not  compre- 
hended in  the  foregoing  description,  except  Indians  not  paying  taxes, 
in  each  State” — this  being  the  ride  in  the  act  of  Congress,  agreed  to 
by  eleven  States,  for  apportioning  quotas  of  revenue  on  the  States, 
and  requiring  a census  only  every  five,  seven,  or  ten  years. 

Mr.  Gerry  (of  Massachusetts)  thought  property  not  the  rule  of  rep- 
resentation. Why,  then,  should  the  blacks,  who  were  property  in 
the  South,  be  in  the  rule  of  representation  more  than  the  cattle 
and  horses  of  the  North  ? 

On  the  question, — Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  New  York,  Penn- 
sylvania, Maryland,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Geor- 
gia, aye — 9;  New  Jersey,  Delaware,  no — 2.  Vol.  II.  pp.  842-3. 

Saturday,  June  30,  1787. 

He  (Mr.  Madison)  admitted  that  every  peculiar  interest,  whether 
in  any  class  of  citizens,  or  any  description  of  states,  ought  to  be  se- 
cured as  far  as  possible.  Wherever  there  is  danger  of  attack,  there 
ought  to  be  given  a constitutional  power  of  defence.  But  he  con- 
tended that  the  States  were  divided  into  different  interests,  not  by 
their  difference  of  size,  but  by  other  circumstances;  the  most  mate- 
rial of  which  resulted  partly  from  climate,  but  principally  from  the 
effects  of  their  having  or  not  having  slaves.  These  two  causes  con- 
curred in  forming  the  great  division  of  interests  in  the  United  States. 


15 


It  did  not  lie  between  the  large  and  small  States.  IT  LAY  BE- 
TWEEN THE  NORTHERN  AND  SOUTHERN;  and  if  any  de- 
fensive power  were  necessary,  it  ought  to  be  mutually  given  to  these 
two  interests.  He  was  so  strongly  impressed  with  this  important 
truth,  that  he  had  been  casting  about  in  his  mind  for  some  expedient 
that  would  answer  the  purpose.  The  one  which  had  occurred  was, 
that  instead  of  proportioning  the  votes  of  the  States  in  both  branches 
to  their  respective  numbers  of  inhabitants,  computing  the  slaves  in 
the  ratio  of  five  to  three,  they  should  be  represented  in  one  branch 
according  to  the  number  of  free  inhabitants  only;  and  in  the  other, 
according  to  the  whole  number,  counting  the  slaves  as  free.  By  this 
arrangement  the  Southern  scale  would  have  the  advantage  in  one 
House,  and  the  Northern  in  the  other.  He  had  been  restrained  from 
proposing  this  expedient  by  two  considerations;  one  was  his  unwil- 
lingness to  urge  any  diversity  of  interests  on  an  occasion  where  it 
is  but  too  apt  to  arise  of  itself;  the  other  was,  the  inequality  of 
powers  that  must  be  vested  in  the  two  branches,  and  which  would 
destroy  the  equilibrium  of  interests,  pp.  1006-7. 

Monday.  July  9,  1787. 

Mr.  Patterson  considered  the  proposed  estimate  for  the  future  ac- 
cording to  the  combined  rules  of  numbers  and  wealth,  as  too  vague. 
For  this  reason  New  Jersey  was  against  it.  He  could  regard  negro 
slaves  in  no  light  but  as  property.  They  are  no  free  agents,  have  no 
personal  liberty,  no  facidty  of  acquiring  property,  but  on  the  con- 
ti  . \ are  themselves  property,  and  like  other  property,  entirely  at 
the  will  of  the  master.  Has  a man  in  Virginia  a number  of  votes 
in  proportion  to  the  number  of  his  slaves?  And  if  negroes  are  not 
represented  in  the  States  to  which  they  belong,  why  should  they  be 
represented  in  the  General  Government.  What  is  the  true  princi- 
ple of  representation  ? It  is  an  expedient  by  which  an  assembly  of 
certain  individuals,  chosen  by  the  people,  is  substituted  in  place  of 
the  inconvenient  meeting  of  the  people  themselves.  If  such  a meet- 
ing of  the  people  was  actually  to  take  place,  would  the  slaves  vote? 
They  would  not.  Why  then  should  they  be  represented  ? He  was 
also  against  such  an  indirect  encouragement  of  the  slave  trade  ; ob- 
serving that  Congress,  in  their  act  relating  to  the  change  of  the 
eighth  article  of  Confederation,  had  been  ashamed  to  use  the  term 
“slaves,”  and  had  substituted  a description. 

Mr.  Madison  reminded  Mr.  Patterson  that  his  doctrine  of  repre- 
sentation, which  was  in  its  principle  the  genuine  one,  must  for  ever 
silence  the  pretensions  of  the  small  States  to  an  equality  of  votes 
with  the  large  ones.  They  ought  to  vote  in  the  same  proportion  in 
which  their  citizens  would  do  if  the  people  of  all  the  States  were 
collectively  met.  He  suggested,  as  a proper  ground  of  compromise, 
that  in  the  first  branch  the  States  should  be  represented  according 
to  their  number  of  free  inhabitants;  and  in  the  second,  which  had 
for  one  of  its  primary  objects  the  guardianship  of  property,  accord- 
ing to  the  whole  number,  including  slaves. 


16 


Mr.  Butler  urged  warmly  the  justice  anil  necessity  of  regarding 
wealth  in  the  apportionment  of  representation. 

Mr.  King  had  always  expected,  that,  as  the  Southern  States  are  the 
richest,  they  would  not  league  themselves  with  the  Northern,  unless 
some  respect  was  paid  to  their  superior  wealth.  If  the  latter  expect 
those  preferential  distinctions  in  commerce,  and  other  advantages 
which  they  will  derive  front  the  connexion,  they  must  not  expect  to 
receive  them  without  allowing  some  advantages  in  return.  Eleven 
out  of  thirteen  of  the  States  laid  agreed  to  consider  slaves  in  the 
apportionment  of  taxation  ; and  taxation  and  representation  ought  to 
go  together,  pp.  1054-5-6. 

Tuesday,  July  10,  1787- 

Mr.  King  remarked  that  the  four  Eastern  States,  having  800,000 
souls,  have  one-third  fewer  representatives  than  the  four  Southern 
States,  having  not  more  than  700,000  souls,  rating  the  blacks  as  five 
for  three.  The  Eastern  people  will  advert  to  these  circumstances, 
and  he  dissatisfied.  He  believed  them  to  he  very  desirous  of  uniting 
with  their  Southern  brethren,  but  did  not  think  it  prudent  to  rely  so 
far  on  that  disposition,  as  to  subject  them  to  any  gross  inequality. 
He  was  fully  convinced  that  THE  QUESTION  CONCERNING  A 
DIFFERENCE  OF  INTERESTS  DID  NOT  LIE  WHERE  IT 
HAD  HITHERTO  BEEN  DISCUSSED,  BETWEEN  THE 
GREAT  AND  SMALL  STATES;  BUT  BETWEEN  THE 
SOUTHERN  AND  EASTERN,  p.  1057. 

Wednesday,  July  11,  1787. 

Mr.  Butler  and  General  Pinckney  insisted  that  blacks  be  included 
in  the  rule  of  representation  equally  with  the  whites;  and  for  that 
purpose  moved  that  the  words  “three  fifths”  be  struck  out. 

Mr.  Gerry  thought  that  three  fifths  of  them  was,  to  say  the  least, 
the  full  proportion  that  could  be  admitted. 

Mr.  Gorham.  This  ratio  was  fixed  by  Congress  as  a rule  of  tax- 
ation. Then,  it  was  urged,  by  the  delegates  representing  the  States 
having  slaves,  that  the  blacks  were  still  more  inferior  to  freemen. 
At  present,  when  the  ratio  of  representation  is  to  be  established,  we 
are  assured  that  they  are  equal  to  freemen.  The  arguments  on  the 
former  occasion  had  convinced  him  that  three  fifths  was  pretty  near 
the  just  proportion,  and  he  should  vote  according  to  the  same  opin- 
ion now. 

Mr.  Butler  insisted  that  the  labor  of  a slave  in  South  Carolina 
was  as  productive  and  valuable  as  that  of  a freeman  in  Massachu- 
setts; that  as  wealth  was  the  great  means  of  defence  and  utility  to 
the  nation,  they  were  equally  valuable  to  it  with  freemen;  and  that 
consequently  an  equal  representation  ought  to  be  allowed  for  them 
in  a government  which  was  instituted  principally,  for  the  protection 
of  property,  and  was  itself  to  be  supported  by  property. 

Mr.  Mason  could  not  agree  to  the  motion,  notwithstanding  it  was 
favorable  to  Virginia,  because  he  thought  it  unjust.  It  was  certain 
that  the  slaves  were  valuable,  as  they  raised  the  value  of  laud,  in- 


17 


creased  the  exports  and  imports,  and  of  course  the  revenue,  would 
supply  the  means  of  feeding  and  supporting  an  army,  and  might 
in  cases  of  emergency  become  themselves  soldiers.  As  in  these 
important  respects  they  were  useful  to  the  community  at  large,  they 
ought  not  to  be  excluded  from  the  estimate  of  representation.  He 
could  not,  however,  regard  them  as  equal  to  freemen,  and  could  not 
vote  for  them  as  such.  He  added,  as  worthy  of  remark,  that  the 
Southern  States  have  this  peculiar  species  of  property,  over  and 
above  the  other  species  of  property  common  to  all  the  States. 

Mr.  Will  iatnson  reminded  Mr.  Gorham,  that  if  the  Southern  States 
contended  for  the  inferiority  of  blacks  to  whites,  when  taxation  was 
in  view,  the  Eastern  States,  on  the  same  occasion,  contended  for 
their  equality.  He  did  not,  however,  either  then  or  now,  concur  in 
either  extreme,  but  approved  of  the  ratio  of  three-fifths. 

On  Mr.  Butler’s  motion,  for  considering  blacks  as  equal  to  whites 
in  the  apportionment  of  representation, — Delaware,  South  Carolina, 
Georgia,  aye — 3 ; Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  New  Jersey,  Pennsyl- 
vania, Maryland,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  no — 7.  New  York  not 
on  the  floor. 

.Mr.  Gonverueur  Morris  said  he  had  several  objections  to  the  pro- 
position of  Mr.  Williamson.  In  the  first  place  it  fettered  the  Legis- 
lature too  much.  In  the  second  place,  it  would  exclude  some  States 
altogether  who  would  not  have  a sufficient  number  to  entitle  them 
to  a single  representation,  in  the  third  place,  it  will  not  consist  with 
the  resolution  passed  on  Saturday  last,  authorizing  the  Legislature 
to  adjust  the  representation,  from  time  to  time  on  the  principles 
of  population  and  wealth;  nor  with  the  principles  of  equity.  If 
slaves  were  to  be  considered  as  inhabitants,  not  as  wealth,  then  the 
said  resolution  would  not  be  pursued;  if  as  wealth,  then  why  is  no 
other  wealth  but  slaves  included  ? These  objections  may  perhaps 
be  removed  by  amendments.  . . Another  objection  with  him,  against 
admitting  the  blacks  into  the  census,  was,  that  the  people  of  Penn- 
sylvania would  revolt  at  the  idea  of  being  put  on  a footing  with 
slaves.  They  would  reject  any  plan  that  was  to  have  such  an  effect. 
pp.  1067-S-9&  1072. 

Wednesday,  July  11,  1787. 

The  next  clause  as  to  three-fifths  of  the  negroes  being  considered  : 

Mr.  King,  being  much  opposed  to  fixing  numbers  as  the  rule  of 
representation,  u’as  particularly  so  on  account  of  the  blacks.  He 
thought  the  admission  of  them  along  with  whites  at  all,  would 
excite  great  discontents  among  the  States  having  no  slaves.  He  had 
never  said,  as  to  any  particular  point,  that  he  would  in  no  event  ac- 
quiesce in  and  support  it ; but  he  would  say  that  if  in  any  case 
such  a declaration  was  to  be  made  by  him,  it  would  be  in  this. 

He  remarked  that  in  the  temporary  allotment  of  representatives  made 
by  the  Committee,  the  Southern  States  had  received  more  than  the 
number  of  their  white  and  three-fifths  of  their  black  inhabitants  entitled 
them  to. 


18 


Mr.  Sherman.  South  Carolina  had  not  more  beyond  her  proportion 
than  New  York  and  New  Hampshire ; nor  eitlier  of  them  more  than 
was  necessary  in  order  to  avoid  fractions,  or  reducing  them  below 
their  proportion.  Georgia  had  more;  but  the  rapid  growth  of  that 
State  seemed  to  justify  it.  In  general  the  allotment  might  not  be 
just,  but  considering  all  circumstances  he  was  satisfied  with  it. 

Mr.  Gorham  was  aware  that  there  might  be  some  weight  in  what 
had  fallen  from  his  colleague,  as  to  the  umbrage  which  might  be 
taken  by  the  people  of  the  Eastern  States.  But  he  recollected  that 
when  the  proposition  of  Congress  for  changing  the  eighth  Article  of  the 
Confederation  was  before  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts,  the  only 
difficulty  then  was,  to  satisfy  them  that  the  negroes  ought  not  to  have 
been  counted  equally  with  the  whites,  instead  of  being  counted  in 
the  ratio  of  three-fifths  only.* 

Mr.  Wilson  did  not  well  see,  on  what  principle  the  admission  of 
blacks  in  the  proportion  of  three  fifths  could  be  explained.  Are 
they  admitted  as  citizens — then  why  are  they  not  admitted  on  an 
equality  with  white  citizens?  Are  they  admitted  as  property — then 
why  is  not  other  property  admitted  into  the  computation  .?  These 
were  difficulties,  however,  which  he  thought  must  be  overruled  by  the 
necessity  of  compromise.  He  had  some  apprehensions  also,  from 
the  tendency  of  the  blending  of  the  blacks  with  the  w'hites,  to  give 
disgust  to  the  people  of  Pennsylvania,  as  had  been  intimated  by 
his  colleague  (Mr.  Gouverneur  Morris.) 

Mr.  Gouverneur  Morris  was  compelled  to  declare  himself  reduced 
to  the  dilemma  of  doing  injustice  to  the  Southern  States,  or  to  human 
nature;  and  he  must  therefore  do  it  to  the  former.  For  he  could 
never  agree  to  give  such  encouragement  to  the  slave  trade,  as  would 
be  given  by  allowing  them  a representation  for  their  negroes  ; and  he 
did  not  believe  those  States  would  ever  confederate  on  terms  that 
would  deprive  them  of  that  trade. 

On  the  question  for  agreeing  to  include  three-fifths  of  the  blacks, — 
Connecticut,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  Georgia,  aye — 4 ; Massachu- 
setts, New- Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland, f South  Caro- 
lina, no — 6.  pp.  1076-7-8. 

Thursday,  July  12,  17S7. 

Mr.  Butler  contended  that  representation  should  he  according  to  the 
full  number  of  inhabitants,  including  all  the  blacks. 

General  Pinckney  was  alarmed  at  what  was  said  yesterday,  [by 
Gouverneur  Morris,]  concerning  the  negroes.  He  was  now  again 
alarmed  at  what  had  been  thrown  out  concerning  the  taxing  of 
exports.  South  Carolina  has  in  one  year  exported  to  the  amount 
of  600,000/.  sterling,  all  which  was  the  fruit  of  the  labor  of  her  blacks. 
Will  she  be  represented  in  proportion  to  this  amount?  She  will 

* They  were  then  to  have  been  a rule  of  taxation  only. 

f Mr.  Carroll  said,  in  explanation  of  the  vote  of  Maryland,  that  he  wished  the 
phraseology  to  be  so  altered  as  to  obviate,  if  possible,  the  danger  which  had  been 
expressed  of  giving  umbrage  to  the  Eastern  and  Middle  States 


19 


not.  Neither  ought  she  then  to  he  subject  to  a tax  on  it.  He  hoped 
a clause  would  be  inserted  in  the  system,  restraining  the  Legislature 
from  taxing  exports. 

Mr.  Gouverneur  Morris  having  so  varied  his  motion  by  inserting 
the  word  “ direct,”  it  passed,  nem.  con.,  as  follows:  “provided  always 
that  direct  taxation  ought  to  be  proportioned  to  representation.” 

Mr.  Davie  said  it  was  high  time  now  to  speak  out.  He  saw  that 
it  was  meant  by  some  gentlemen  to  deprive  the  Southern  States  of 
any  share  of  representation  for  their  blacks.  He  was  sure  that  North 
Carolina  would  never  confederate  on  any  terms  that  did  not  rate  them 
at  least  as  three-fifths.  If  the  Eastern  States  meant,  therefore,  to 
exclude  them  altogether,  the  business  was  at  an  end. 

Dr.  Johnson  thought  that  wealth  and  population  were  the  true, 
equitable  rules  of  representation  ; but  he  conceived  that  these  two 
principles  resolved  themselves  into  one,  population  being  the  best 
measure  of  wealth.  He  concluded,  therefore,  that  the  number  of 
people  ought  to  be  established  as  the  rule,  and  that  all  descriptions, 
including  blacks  equally  with  the  whites,  ought  to  fall  within  the 
computation.  As  various  opinions  had  been  expressed  on  the  subject, 
he  would  move  that  a committee  might  be  appointed  to  take  them 
into  consideration,  and  report  them. 

Mr.  Gouverneur  Morris.  It  had  been  said  that  it  is  high  time  to 
speak  out.  As  one  member,  he  would  candidly  do  so.  He  came 
here  to  form  a compact  for  the  good  of  America.  He  was  ready  to 
do  so  with  all  the  States.  He  hoped,  and  believed,  that  all  would 
enter  into  such  compact.  If  they  would  not,  he  was  ready  to  join 
with  any  States  that  would.  But  as  the  compact  was  to  be  voluntary, 
it  is  in  vain  for  the  Eastern  States  to  insist  on  what  the  Southern 
States  will  never  agree  to.  It  is  equally  vain  for  the  latter  to  require, 
what  the  other  States  can  never  admit;  and  he  verily  believed  the 
people  of  Pennsylvania  will  never  agree  to  a representation  of 
negroes.  What  can  be  desired  by  these  States  more  than  has  been 
already  proposed — that  the  legislature  shall  from  time  to  time  regu- 
late representation  according  to  population  and  wealth  P 

General  Pinckney  desired  that  the  rule  of  wealth  should  be  ascer- 
tained, and  not  left  to  the  pleasure  of  the  legislature  ; and  that  prop- 
erty in  slaves  should  not  be  exposed  to  danger,  under  a government 
instituted  for  the  protection  of  property. 

The  first  clause  in  the  Report  of  the  first  Grand  Committee  was 
postponed. 

Mr.  Ellsworth,  in  order  to  carry  into  effect  the  principle  established, 
moved  to  add  to  the  last  clause  adopted  by  the  House,  the  words 
following,  “and  that  the  rule  of  contribution  for  direct  taxation,  for 
the  support  of  the  government  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  the 
number  of  white  inhabitants,  and  three-fifths  of  every  other  descrip- 
tion in  the  several  States,  until  some  other  rule  that  shall  more  accu- 
rately ascertain  the  wealth  of  the  several  States,  can  be  devised  and 
adopted  by  the  Legislature.” 


20 


Mr.  Butler  seconded  the  motion,  in  order  that  it  might  be  com- 
mitted. 

Mr.  Randolph  was  not  satisfied  vvitli  the  motion.  The  danger  will 
be  revived,  that  the  ingenuity  of  the  Legislature  may  evade  or  per- 
vert the  rule,  so  as  to  perpetuate  the  power  where  it  shall  Lie  lodged 
in  the  first  instance.  Me  proposed,  in  lieu  of  Mr.  Ellsworth’s  motion, 
“that  in  order  to  ascertain  the  alterations  in  representation  that  may 
be  required,  from  time  to  time,  by  changes  in  the  relative  circum- 
stances of  the  States,  a census  shall  be  taken  within  two  years  from 
the  first  meeting  of  the  General  Legislature  of  the  United  States,  and 
once  within  the  term  of  every  — years  afterwards,  of  all  the  inhabitants, 
in  the  manner  and  according  to  the  ratio  recommended  by  Congress 
in  their  Resolution  of  the  eighteenth  day  of  April,  1783,  (rating  the 
blacks  at  three-fifths  of  their  number;)  and  that  the  Legislature  of  the 
United  States  shall  arrange  the  representation  accordingly.”  He  urged 
strenuously  that  express  security  ought  to  he  provided  for  including 
slaves  in  the  ratio  of  representation.  He  lamented  that  such  a species 
of  property  existed.  But  as  it  did  exist,  the  holders  of  it  would 
require  this  security.  It  was  perceived  that  the  design  was  enter- 
tained by  some  of  excluding  slaves  altogether;  the  Legislature  there- 
fore ought  not  to  he  left  at  liberty. 

Mr.  Ellsworth  withdraws  his  motion,  and  seconds  that  of  Mr. 
Randolph, 

Mr.  Wilson  observed,  that  less  umbrage  would  perhaps  he  taken 
against  an  admission  of  the  slaves  into  the  rule  of  representation,  if  it 
should  be  so  expressed  as  to  make  them  indirectly  only  an  ingredient  in 
the  rule,  by  saying  that  they  should  enter  into  the  rule  of  taxation  ; and 
as  representation  was  to  be  according  to  taxation,  the  end  would  be 
equally  attained. 

Mr.  Pinckney  moved  to  amend  Mr.  Randolph’s  motion,  so  as  to 
make  “ blacks  equal  to  the  whites  in  the  ratio  of  representation.”  This, 
be  urged,  was  nothing  more  than  justice.  The  blacks  are  the 
laborers,  the  peasants,  of  the  Southern  States.  They  are  as  produc- 
tive of  pecuniary  resources  as  those  of  the  northern  States.  They 
add  equally  to  the  wealth,  and,  considering  money  as  the  sinew  of 
war.  to  the  strength,  of  the  nation.  It  will  also  be  politic  with  regard 
to  the  Northern  States,  as  taxation  is  to  keep  pace  with  representation. 

On  Mr.  Pinckney’s  (of  S.  Carolina)  motion,  for  rating  blacks  os 
equal  to  whites,  instead  of  as  three-fifths, — South  Carolina,  Georgia, 
aye  — 2;  Massachusetts,  Connecticut  (Doctor  Johnson,  aye),  New' 
Jersey,  Pennsylvania  (three  against  two),  Delaware,  Maryland,  Vir- 
ginia, North  Carolina,  no — 8. 

Mr.  Randolph’s  (of  Virginia)  proposition,  as  varied  by  Mr.  Wilson 
(of  Pennsylvania)  being  read  for  taking  the  question  on  the  whole, — 

Mr.  Gerry  (of  Massachusetts)  urged  that  the  principle  of  it  could 
not  be  carried  into  execution,  as  the  States  were  not  to  be  taxed  as 
States.  With  regard  to  taxes  on  imposts,  he  conceived  they  would 
be  more  productive  when  there  were  no  slaves,  than  where  there 
were  ; the  consumption  being  greater. 


21 


Mr.  Ellsworth  (of  Connecticut.)  In  the  case  of  a poll-tax  there 
would  be  no  difficulty.  But  there  would  probably  be  none.  The 
sum  allotted  to  a State  may  be  levied  without  difficulty,  according  to 
the  plan  used  by  the  State  in  raising  its  own  supplies. 

Ou  the  question  on  the  whole  proposition,  as  proportioning  repre- 
sentation to  direct  taxation,  and  both  to  the  white  and  three-filths  of 
the  black  inhabitants,  and  requiring  a census  within  six  years,  and 
within  every  ten  years  afterwards, — Connecticut,  Pennsylvania, 
Maryland,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  Georgia,  aye — & ; New-Jersey,' 
Delaware,  no — 2;  Massachusetts,  South  Carolina,  divided,  j op.  1079 
to  10S7. 

Friday,  July  13,  1787. 

On  the  motion  of  Mr.  Randolph  (of  Virginia),  the  vote  of  Monday 
last,  authorizing  the  Legislature  to  adjust,  from  time  to  time,  the  repre- 
sentation upon  the  principles  of  wealth  and  numbers  of  inhabitants, 
was  reconsidered  by  common  consent,  in  order  to  strike  out  wealth 
and  adjust  the  resolution  to  that  requiring  periodical  revisions  accord- 
ing to  the  number  of  whites  aDd  three-fifths  of  the  blacks. 

Mr.  Gouverneur  Morris  (of  Pennsylvania)  opposed  the  alteration,  as 
leaving  still  an  incoherence.  If  negroes  were  to  be  viewed  as  in- 
habitants, and  the  revision  was  to  proceed  on  the  principle  of  numbers 
of  inhabitants,  they  ought  to  be  added  in  their  entire  number,  and  not 
in  the  proportion  of  three-fifths.  If  as  property,  the  word  wealth  was 
right ; and  striking  it  out  would  produce  the  very  inconsistency  which 
it  wras  meant  to  get  rid  of.  The  train  of  business,  and  the  late  turn 
which  it  had  taken,  had  led  him,  he  said,  into  deep  meditation  on  it, 
and  he  would  candidly  state  the  result.  A distinction  has  been  set 
up,  and  urged,  between  the  Northern  and  Southern  States.  He  had 
hitherto  considered ^his  doctrine  as  heretical.  He  still  thought  the 
distinction  groundless.  He  sees,  however,  that  it  is  persisted  in  ; and 
the  Southern  gentlemen  will  not  be  satisfied  unless  they  see  the  way 
open  to  their  gaining  a majority  in  the  public  councils.  The  conse- 
quence of  such  a transfer  of  power  from  the  maritime  to  the  interior 
and  landed  interest,  will,  he  foresees,  be  such  an  oppression  to  com- 
merce, that  he  shall  be  obliged  to  vote  for  the  vicious  principle  of 
equality  in  the  second  branch,  in  order  to  provide  some  defence  for 
the  Northern  States  against  it.  But  to  come  more  to  the  point, 
either  this  distinction  is  fictitious  or  real  ; if  fictitious,  let  it  be  dis- 
missed, and  let  us  proceed  with  due  confidence.  If  it  be  real,  instead 
of  attempting  to  blend  incompatible  things,  let  us  at  once  take  a 
friendly  leave  of  each  other.  There  can  be  no  end  of  demands  for 
security,  if  every  particular  interest  is  to  be  entitled  to  it.  The  East- 
ern States  may  claim  it  for  their  fishery,  and  for  other  objects,  as  the 
Southern  States  claim  it  for  their  peculiar  objects.  In  this  struggle 
between  the  two  ends  of  the  Union,  what  part  ought  the  Middle 
States,  in  point  of  policy,  to  take  ? To  join  their  Eastern  brethren, 
according  to  his  ideas.  If  the  Southern  States  get  the  power  into 
their  hands,  and  be  joined,  as  they  will  be,  with  the  interior  country, 


22 

they  will  inevitably  bring  on  a war  with  Spain  for  the  Mississippi. 
This  language  is  already  held.  The  interior  country,  having  no 
property  nor  interest  exposed  on  the  sea,  will  be  little  affected  by 
such  a war.  He  wished  to  know  what  security  the  Northern  and 
Middle  States  will  have  against  this  danger,  it  has  been  said  that 
North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and  Georgia  only,  will  in  a little  time 
have  a majority  of  the  people  of  America.  They  must  in  that  case 
include  the  great  interior  country,  and  every  thing  was  to  be  appre- 
hended from  their  getting  the  power  into  their  bands. 

Mr.  Butler  (of  South  Carolina).  The  security  the  Southern  States 
want  is,  that  their  negroes  may  not  be  taken  from  them,  which  some 
gentlemen  within  or  without  doors  have  a very  good  mind  to  do.  It 
was  not  supposed  that  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina  and  Georgia, 
would  have  more  people  than  all  the  other  States,  but  many  more 
relatively  to  the  other  States,  than  they  now  have.  The  people  and 
strength  of  America  are  evidently  bearing  southwardly,  and  south- 
westward  ly. 

On  the  question  to  strike  out  wectlth,  and  to  make  the  change  as 
moved  by  Mr  Randolph  (of  Virginia),  it  passed  in  the  affirmative, — 
Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  New-Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Maryland, 
Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  aye — 9 ; Delaware, 
divided,  pp.  1090-1-2-3-4. 

Saturday,  July  14,  1787. 

Mr.  Madison  (of  Virginia).  It  seemed  now  pretty  well  understood, 
that  the  real  difference  of  interests  lay,  not  between  the  large  and 
small,  but  between  the  Northern  and  Southern  States.  THE  INSTI- 
TUTION OF  SLAVERY,  AND  ITS  CONSEQUENCES,  FORMED 
THE  LINE  OF  DISCRIMINATION,  p.  1104. 

Monday,  July  23,  1787. 

General  Pinckney  reminded  the  Convention,  that  if  the  Committee 
should  fail  to  insert  some  security  to  the  Southern  States  against  an 
emancipation  of  slaves,  and  taxes  on  exports,  he  should  be  bound  by 
duty  to  his  State  to  vote  against  their  report,  p.  1187. 

Tuesday,  July  24,  1787. 

Mr.  Gouverneur  Morris  hoped  the  Committee  would  strike  out  the 
whole  of  the  clause  proportioning  direct  taxation  to  representation. 
He  had  only  meant  it  as  a bridge*' to  assist  us  over  a certain  gulf; 
having  passed  the  gulf,  the  bridge  may  be  removed.  He  thought  the 
principle  laid  down  with  so  much  strictness  liable  to  strong  objections. 
p.  1197. 

Wednesday,  August  8,  1787. 

Mr.  King  wished  to  know  what  influence  the  vote  just  passed  was 
meant  to  have  on  the  succeeding  part  of  the  Report,  concerning  the 
admission  of  slaves  into  the  rule  of  representation.  He  could  not 

* The  object  was  to  lessen  the  eagerness,  on  one  side,  for,  and  the  opposition,  on 
the  other,  to  the  share  of  representation  claimed  try  the  Southern  States  on  account 
of  the  negroes. 


23 


reconcile  his  mind  to  the  Article,  if  it  was  to  prevent  objections  to 
the  latter  part.  The  admission  of  slaves  was  a most  grating  circum- 
stance to  his  mind,  and  he  believed  would  be  so  to  a great  part  of 
the  people  of  America.  He  had  not  made  a strenuous  opposition  to 
it  heretofore,  because  he  had  hoped  that  this  concession  would  have 
produced  a readiness,  which  had  not  been  manifested,  to  strengthen 
the  General  Government,  and  to  mark  a full  confidence  in  it.  The 
Report  under  consideration  had,  by  the  tenor  of  it,  put  an  end  to  all 
those  hopes.  In  two  great  points  the  hands  of  the  Legislature  were 
absolutely  tied.  The  importation  of  slaves  could  not  be  prohibited. 
Exports  could  not  be  taxed.  Is  this  reasonable?  What  are  the 
great  objects  of  the  general  system?  First,  defence  against  foreign 
invasion  ; secondly,  against  internal  sedition.  Shall  all  the  States, 
then,  be  bound  to  defend  each,  and  shall  each  be  at  liberty  to  intro- 
duce a weakness  which  will  render  defence  more  difficult  ? Shall 
one  part  of  the  United  States  be  bound  to  defend  another  part,  and 
that  other  part  be  at  liberty,  not  only  to  increase  its  own  danger,  but 
to  withhold  the  compensation  for  the  burden?  If  slaves  are  to  be 
imported,  shall  not  the  exports  produced  by  their  labor  supply  a 
revenue  the  better  to  enable  the  General  Government  to  defend  their 
masters?  There  was  so  much  inequality  and  unreasonableness  in  all 
this,  that  the  people  of  the  Northern  States  could  never  be  reconciled 
to  it.  No  candid  man  couid  undertake  to  justify  it  to  them.  He 
had  hoped  that  some  accommodation  would  have  taken  place  on.  this 
subject;  that  at  least  a time  would  have  been  limited  for  the  impor- 
tation of  slaves.  He  never  could  agree  to  let  them  be  imported  with- 
out limitation,  and  then  be  represented  in  the  National  Legislature. 
Indeed,  he  could  so  little  persuade  himself  of  the  rectitude  of  such  a 
practice,  that  he  was  not  sure  he  could  assent  to  it  under  any  circum- 
stances. At  all  events,  either  slaves  should  not  be  represented,  or 
exports  should  be  taxable. 

Mr.  Sherman  regarded  the  slave  trade  as  iniquitous;  but  the  point 
of  representation  having  been  settled  after  much  difficulty  and  delib- 
eration, he  did  not  think  himself  bound  to  make  opposition  ; especially 
as  the  present  Article,  as  amended,  did  not  preclude  any  arrangement 
whatever  on  that  point,  in  another  place  of  the  report. 

Mr.  Gouverneur  Morris  moved  to  insert  “ free”  before  the  word 
“inhabitants.”  Much,  he  said,  would  depend  on  this  point.  He  never 
would  concur  in  upholding  domestic  slavery.  It  was  a nefarious 
institution.  It  was  the  curse  of  Heaven  on  the  States  w here  it  pre- 
vailed. Compare  the  free  regions  of  the  Middle  States,  where  a rich 
and  noble  cultivation  marks  the  prosperity  and  happiness  of  the 
people,  with  the  misery  and  poverty  which  overspread  the  barren 
wastes  of  Virginia,  Maryland,  and  the  other  States  having  slaves. 
Travel  through  the  whole  continent,  and  you  behold  the  prospect 
continually  varying  with  the  appearance  and  disappearance  of  slavery. 
The  moment  you  leave  the  Eastern  States,  and  enter  New-York,  the 
effects  of  the  institution  become  visible.  Passing  through  the  Jerseys 


24 


and  entering  Pennsylvania,  every  criterion  of  superior  improvement 
witnesses  the  change.  Proceed  southwardly,  and  every  step  you 
take,  through  the  great  regions  of  slaves,  presents  a desert  increasing 
with  the  increasing  proportion  of  these  wretched  beings.  Upon  what 
principle  is  it  that  the  slaves  shall  be  computed  in  the  representation  P 
Are  they  men  ? Then  make  them  citizens,  and  let  them  vote.  Are 
they  property  ? Why,  then,  is  no  other  property  included  ? The 
houses  in  this  city  (Philadelphia)  are  worth  more  than  all  the 
wretched  slaves  who  (rover  the  rice  swamps  of  South  Carolina.  The 
admission  of  slaves  into  the  representation,  when  fairly  explained, 
comes  to  this,  that  the  inhabitant  of  Georgia  and  South  Carolina, 
who  goes  to  the  coast  of  Africa,  and,  in  defiance  of  the  most  sacred 
laws  of  humanity,  tears  away  his  fellow-creatures  from  their  dearest 
connections,  and  damns  them  to  the  most  cruel  bondage,  shall  have 
more  votes  in  a government  instituted  for  protection  of  the  rights 
of  mankind,  than  the  citizen  of  Pennsylvania  or  New-Jersey,  who 
views  with  a laudable  horror  so  nefarious  a practice.  lie  would  add, 
that  domestic  slavery  is  the  most  prominent  feature  in  the  aristocratic 
countenance  of  the  proposed  Constitution.  The  vassalage  of  the 
poor  has  ever  been  the  favorite  offspring  of  aristocracy.  And  what 
is  the  proposed  compensation  to  the  Northern  States,  for  a sacrifice 
of  every  principle  of  right,  of  every  impulse  of  humanity  ? They  are 
to  bind  themselves  to  march  their  militia  for  the  defence  of  the 
Southern  States,  for  their  defence  against  those  very  slaves  of  whom 
they  complain.  They  must  supply  vessels  and  seamen,  in  case  of 
foreign  attack.  The  Legislature  will  have  indefinite  [lower  to  tax 
them  by  excises,  and  duties  on  imports;  both  of  which  will  fall  heavier 
on  them  than  on  the  Southern  inhabitants;  lor  the  bohea  tea  used  by 
a Northern  freeman  will  pay  more  tax  than  the  whole  consumption  of 
the  miserable  slave,  which  consists  of  nothing  more  than  his  physical 
subsistence  and  the  rag  that  covers  his  nakedness.  On  the  other 
side,  the  Southern  States  are  not  to  be  restrained  from  importing  fresh 
supplies  of  wretched  Africans,  at  once  to  increase  the  danger  of 
attack,  and  the  difficulty  of  defence;  nay,  they  are  to  be  encouraged 
to  it,  by  an  assurance  of  having  their  votes  in  the  National  Govern- 
ment increased  in  proportion  ; and  are,  at  the  same  time,  to  have 
their  exports  and  their  slaves  exempt  from  all  contributions  for  the 
public  service.  Let  it  not  be  said,  that  direct  taxation  is  to  be  pro- 
portioned to  representation.  It  is  idle  to  suppose  that  the  General 
Government  can  stretch  its  hand  directly  into  the  pockets  of  the 
people,  scattered  over  so  vast  a country.  They  can  only  do  it  through 
the  medium  of  exports,  imports  and  excises.  For  what,  then,  are 
all  the  sacrifices  to  be  made  ? He  would  sooner  submit  himself  to  a 
tax  for  paying  for  all  the  negroes  in  the  United  States,  than  saddle 
posterity  with  such  a Constitution. 

Mr.  Dayton  seconded  the  motion.  He  did  it,  he  said,  that  his 
sentiments  on  the  subject  might  appear,  whatever  might  be  the  fate 
of  the  amendment. 


25 


Mr.  Sherman  did  not  regard  the  admission  of  the  negroes  into  the 
ratio  of  representation,  as  liable  to  such  insuperable  objections.  It 
was  the  freemen  of  the  Southern  States  who  were,  in  fact,  to  be  rep- 
resented according  to  the  taxes  paid  by  them,  and  the  negroes  are 
only  included  in  the  estimate  of  the  taxes.  This  was  his  idea  of  the 
matter. 

Mr.  Pinckney  considered  the  fisheries,  and  the  western  frontier, 
as  more  burtbensome  to  the  United  States  than  the  slaves.  He 
thought  this  could  be  demonstrated,  if  the  occasion  w’ere  a proper 
one. 

Mr.  Wilson  thought  the  motion  premature.  An  agreement  to  the 
clause  would  be  no  bar  to  the  object  of  it. 

On  the  question,  on  the  motion  to  insert  “free”  before  “inhabitants,” 
New- Jersey,  aye — 1 ; New-IIampshire,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut, 
Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South 
Carolina,  Georgia,  no — 10.  pp.  1261-2-3-4-5-6. 

Tuesday,  August  21,  1787. 

Mr.  L.  Martin  proposed  to  vary  Article  7,  Section  4,  so  as  to  allow 
a prohibition  or  tax  on  the  importation  of  slaves.  In  the  first  place, 
as  five  slaves  are  to  be  counted  as  three  freemen,  in  the  apportion- 
ment of  Representatives,  such  a clause  would  leave  an  encouragement 
to  this  traffic.  In  the  second  place,  slaves  weakened  one  part  of  the 
Union,  which  the  other  parts  were  bound  to  protect;  the  privilege  of 
importing  them  was  therefore  unreasonable.  And  in  the  third  place, 
it  was  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  the  Revolution,  and  dishon- 
orable to  the  American  character,  to  have  such  a feature  in  the 
Constitution. 

Mr.  Rutledge  did  not  see  how  the  importation  of  slaves  could  be 
encouraged  by  this  section.  He  was  not  apprehensive  of  insurrec- 
tions, and  would  readily  exempt  the  other  States  from  the  obligation 
to  protect  the  Southern  against  them.  Religion  and  humanity  had 
nothing  to  do  with  this  question.  Interest  alone  is  the  governing 
principle  with  nations.  The  true  question  at  present  is,  whether  the 
Southern  States  shall  or  shall  not  be  parties  to  the  Union.  If  the 
Northern  States  considt  their  interest,  they  will  not  oppose  the  increase 
of  slaves,  which  will  increase  the  commodities  of  which  they  will 
become  the  carriers. 

Mr.  Ellsworth  was  for  leaving  the  clause  as  it  stands.  Let  every 
State  import  what  it  pleases.  The  morality  or  wisdom  of  slavery 
are  considerations  belonging  to  the  States  themselves.  What  enriches 
a part  enriches  the  whole,  and  the  States  are  the  best  judges  of  their 
particular  interest.  The  Old  Confederation  had  not  meddled  with 
this  point;  and  he  did  not  see  any  greater  necessity  for  bringing  it 
within  the  policy  of  the  new  one. 

Mr.  Pinckney.  South  Carolina  can  never  receive  the  plan  if  it 
prohibits  the  slave  trade.  In  every  proposed  extension  of  the  powers 
of  Congress,  that  State  has  expressly  and  watchfully  excepted  that  of 
meddling  with  the  importation  of  negroes.  If  the  States  be  all  left  at 
3 


26 


liberty  on  this  subject,  South  Carolina  may  perhaps,  by  degrees,  do 
of  herself  what  is  wished,  as  Virginia  and  Maryland  already  have 
done.  Adjourned,  pp.  1388-9. 

Wednesday,  August  22,  1787. 

Article  7,  Section  4,  was  resumed. 

Mr.  Sherman  was  for  leaving  the  clause  as  it  stands.  He  disap- 
proved of  the  slave  trade ; yet  as  the  States  were  now  possessed  ol 
the  right  to  import  slaves,  as  the  public  good  did  not  require  it  to  be 
taken  from  them,  and  as  it  was  expedient  to  have  as  few  objections 
as  possible  to  the  proposed  scheme  of  government,  he  thought  it 
best  to  leave  the  matter  as  we  find  it.  He  observed  that  the  abolition 
of  slavery  seemed  to  be  going  on  in  the  United  States,  and  that  the 
good  sense  of  the  several  States  would  probably  by  degress  com- 
plete it.  He  urged  on  the  Convention  the  necessity  of  despatching  its 
business. 

Col.  Mason.  This  infernal  traffic  originated  in  the  avarice  of  British 
merchants.  The  British  Government  constantly  checked  the  attempts 
of  Virginia  to  put  a stop  to  it.  The  present  question  concerns  not 
the  importing  States  alone,  but  the  whole  Union.  The  evil  of  having 
slaves  was  experienced  during  the  late  war.  Had  slaves  been  treated 
as  they  might  have  been  by  the  enemy,  they  would  have  proved  dan- 
gerous instruments  in  their  hands.  But  their  folly  dealt  by  the 
slaves  as  it  did  by  the  tories.  He  mentioned  the  dangerous  insur- 
rections of  the  slaves  in  Greece  and  Sicily ; and  the  instructions 
given  by  Cromwell  to  the  commissioners  sent  to  Virginia,  to  arm 
the  servants  and  slaves,  in  case  other  means  of  obtaining  its  submis- 
sion should  fail.  Maryland  and  Virginia  he  said  had  already  pro- 
hibited the  importation  of  slaves  expressly.  North  Carolina  had 
done  the  same  in  substance.  All  this  would  be  in  vain,  if  South 
Carolina  and  Georgia  be  at  liberty  to  import.  The  Western  people 
are  already  calling  out  for  slaves  for  their  new  lands  ; and  will  fill 
that  country  with  slaves,  if  they  can  be  got  through  South  Carolina 
and  Georgia.  Slavery  discourages  arts  and  manufactures.  The  poor 
despise  labor  when  performed  by  slaves.  They  prevent  the  emigra- 
tion of  whites,  who  really  enrich  and  strengthen  a country.  They 
produce  the  most  pernicious  effect  on  manners.  Every  master  of 
slaves  is  born  a petty  tyrant.  They  bring  the  judgment  of  Heaven 
on  a country.  As  nations  cannot  be  revvarded  or  punished  in  the 
next  world,  they  must  be  in  this.  By  an  inevitable  chain  of  causes 
and  effects,  Providence  punishes  national  sins  by  national  calamities. 
He  lamented  that  some  of  our  Eastern  brethren  had,  from  a lust  of 
gain,  embarked  in  the  nefarious  traffic.  As  to  the  States  being  in 
possession  of  the  right  to  import,  this  was  the  case  with  many  other 
rights,  now  to  be  properly  given  up.  He  held  it  essential  in  every 
point  of  view,  that  the  General  Government  should  have  power  to 
prevent  the  increase  of  slavery. 

Mr.  Ellsworth,  as  he  had  never  owned  a slave,  could  not  judge  of 
the  effects  of  slavery  on  character.  He  said,  however,  that  if  it  w- 


27 


to  be  considered  in  a moral  light,  we  ought  to  go  further  and  free 
those  already  in  the  country.  As  slaves  also  multiply  so  fast  in  Vir- 
ginia and  Maryland  that  it  is  cheaper  to  raise  than  import  them, 
whilst  in  the  sickly  rice  swamps  foreign  supplies  are  necessary,  if  we 
go  no  further  than  is  urged,  we  shall  be  unjust  towards  South  Caro- 
lina and  Georgia.  Let  us  not  intermeddle.  As  population  increases, 
poor  laborers  will  be  so  plenty  as  to  render  slaves  useless.  Slavery, 
in  time,  will  not  be  a speck  in  our  country.  Provision  is  already 
made  in  Connecticut  for  abolishing  it.  And  the  abolition  has 
already  taken  place  in  Massachusetts.  As  to  the  danger  of  insurrec- 
tions from  foreign  influence,  that  will  become  a motive  to  kind 
treatment  of  the  slaves. 

Mr.  Pinckney.  If  slavery  be  wrong,  it  is  justified  by  the  example 
of  all  the  world.  He  cited  the  case  of  Greece,  Rome  and  other 
ancient  States  ; the  sanction  given  by  France,  England,  Holland  and 
other  modern  States.  In  all  ages,  one  half  of  mankind  have  been 
slaves.  If  the  Southern  States  were  let  alone,  they  will  probably  of 
themselves  stop  importations.  He  would  himself,  as  a citizen  of 
South  Carolina,  vote  for  it.  An  attempt  to  take  away  the  right,  as 
proposed,  will  produce  serious  objections  to  the  Constitution,  which 
he  wished  to  see  adopted. 

Gen.  Pinckney  declared  it  to  be  his  firm  opinion  that  if  himself 
and  all  his  colleagues  were  to  sign  the  Constitution  and  use  their 
personal  influence,  it  would  be  of  no  avail  towards  obtaining  the  as- 
sent of  their  constituents.  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  cannot  do 
without  slaves.  As  to  Virginia,  she  will  gain  by  stopping  the  import- 
ations. Her  slaves  will  rise  in  value,  and  she  has  more  than  she 
wants.  It  would  be  unequal,  to  require  South  Carolina  and  Georgia, 
to  confederate  on  such  unequal  terms.  He  said  the  Royal  assent, 
before  the  Revolution,  had  never  been  refused  to  South  Carolina,  as  to 
Virginia.  He  contended  that  the  importation  of  slaves  would  be  for 
the  interest  of  the  whole  Union.  The  more  slaves,  the  more  produce 
to  employ  the  carrying  trade;  the  more  consumption  also;  and  the 
more  of  this,  the  more  revenue  for  the  common  treasury.  He  admit- 
ted it  to  be  reasonable  that  slaves  should  be  dutied  like  other  imports; 
but  should  consider  a rejection  of  the  clause  as  an  exclusion  of  South 
Carolina  from  the  Union. 

Mr.  Baldwin  had  conceived  national  objects  alone  to  be  before  the 
Convention  ; not  such  as,  like  the  present,  were  of  a local  nature. 
Georgia  was  decided  on  this  point.  That  Slate  has  always  hitherto 
supposed  a General  Government  to  be  the  pursuit  of  the  central 
States,  who  wished  to  have  a vortex  for  every  thing  ; that  her  distance 
would  preclude  her,  from  equal  advantage  ; and  that  she  could  not 
prudently  purchase  it  by  yielding  national  powers.  From  this  it 
might  be  understood,  in  what  light  she  would  view  an  attempt  to 
abridge  one  of  her  favorite  prerogatives.  If  left  to  herself,  she  may 
probably  put  a stop  to  the  evil.  As  one  ground  for  this  conjecture, 
he  took  notice  of  the  sect  of ; which  he  said  was  a respecta- 


28 


ble  class  of  people,  who  carried  their  ethics  beyond  the  mere  equality 
of  men,  extending  their  humanity  to  the  claims  of  the  whole  animal 
creation. 

Mr.  Wilson  observed  that  if  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  were 
themselves  disposed  to  get  rid  of  the  importation  of  slaves  in  a short 
time,  as  had  been  suggested,  they  would  never  refuse  to  unite  because 
the  importation  might  he  prohibited.  As  the  section  now  stands,  all 
articles  imported  are  to  be  taxed.  Slaves  alone  are  exempt.  This 
is  in  fact  a bounty  on  that  article. 

Mr.  Gerry  thought  we  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  conduct  of  the 
States  as  to  slaves,  but  ought  to  be  careful  not  to  give  any  sanction 
to  it. 

Mr.  Dickinson  considered  it  as  inadmissible,  on  every  principle 
of  honor  and  safety,  that  the  importation  of  slaves  should  be  author- 
ized to  the  States  by  the  Constitution.  The  true  question  was, 
whether  the  national  happiness  would  be  promoted  or  impeded  by 
the  importation  ; and  this  question  ought  to  be  left  to  the  National 
Government,  not  to  the  States  particularly  interested.  If  Englaud 
and  France  permit  slavery,  slaves  are,  at  the  same  time,  excluded 
from  both  those  kingdoms.  Greece  and  Rome  were  made  unhappy 
by  their  slaves.  He  could  not  believe  that  the  Southern  States  would 
refnse  to  confederate  on  the  account  apprehended  ; especially  as  the 
power  was  not  likely  to  be  immediately  exercised  by  the  General 
Government. 

Mr.  Williamson  stated  the  law  of  North  Carolina  on  the  subject,  to 
wit,  that  it  did  not  directly  prohibit  the  importation  of  slaves.  It 
imposed  a duty  of  £5  on  each  slave  imported  from  Africa;  £10  on 
each  from  elsewhere  ; and  £50  on  each  from  a State  licensing  man- 
umission. He  thought  the  Southern  States  could  not  be  members  of 
the  Union,  if  the  clause  should  be  rejected;  and  that  it  was  wrong 
to  force  any  thing  down  not  absolutely  necessary,  and  which  any 
State  must  disagree  to. 

Mr.  King  thought  the  subject  should  be  considered  in  a political 
light  only.  If  two  States  will  not  agree  to  the  Constitution,  as  stated 
on  one  side,  he  could  affirm  with  equal  belief,  on  the  other,  that  great 
and  equal  opposition  would  be  experienced  from  the  other  States. 
He  remarked  on  the  exemption  of  slaves  from  duty,  whilst  every  oth- 
er import  was  subjected  to  it,  as  an  inequality  that  could  not  fail  to 
strike  the  commercial  sagacity  of  the  Northern  and  Middle  States. 

Mr.  Langdon  was  strenuous  for  giving  the  power  to  the  General 
Government.  He  could  not,  with  a good  conscience,  leave  it  with 
the  States,  who  could  then  go  on  with  the  traffic,  without  being  re- 
strained by  the  opinions  here  given,  that  they  will  themselves  cease 
to  import  slaves. 

Gen.  Pinckney  thought  himself  bound  to  declare  candidly,  that  be 
did  not  think  South  Carolina  would  stop  her  importations  of  slaves, 
in  any  short  time  ; but  only  stop  them  occasionally  as  she  now  does. 
He  moved  to  commit  the  clause,  that  slaves  might  be  made  liable  to 


29 


an  equal  tax  with  other  imports  ; which  he  thought  right,  and  which 
would  remove  one  difficulty  that  had  been  started. 

Mr.  Rutledge.  If  the  Convention  thinks  that  North  Carolina, 
South  Carolina,  and  Georgia,  will  ever  agree  to  the  plan,  unless  their 
right  to  import  slaves  be  untouched,  the  expectation  is  vain.  The 
people  of  those  States  will  never  be  such  fools,  as  to  give  up  so  im- 
portant an  interest.  He  was  strenuous  against  striking  out  the  sec- 
tion, and  seconded  the  motion  of  Gen.  Pinckney  for  a commitment. 

Mr.  Gouverneur  Morris  wished  the  whole  subject  to  be  committed 
including  the  clauses  relating  to  taxes  on  exports  and  to  a navigation 
act.  These  things  may  form  a bargain  among  the  Northern  and 
Southern  States. 

Mr.  Butler  declared  that  he  never  would  agree  to  the  power  of  tax- 
ing exports. 

Mr.  Sherman  said  it  was  better  to  let  the  Southern  States  import 
slaves,  than  to  part  with  them,  if  they  made  that  a sine  qua  non.  He 
was  opposed  to  a tax  on  slaves  imported,  as  making  the  matter  worse, 
because  it  implied  they  were  property.  He  acknowledged  that  if  the 
power  of  prohibiting  the  importation  should  be  given  to  the  General 
Government,  that  it  would  be  exercised.  He  thought  it  would  be  its 
duty  to  exercise  the  power. 

Mr.  Read  was  for  the  commitment,  provided  the  clause  concerning 
taxes  on  exports  should  also  be  committed. 

Mr.  Sherman  observed  that  that  clause  had  been  agreed  to,  and 
therefore  could  not  be  committed. 

Mr.  Randolph  was  for  committing,  in  order  that  some  middle 
ground  might,  if  possible,  be  found.  He  could  never  agree  to  the 
clause  as  it  stands.  He  would  sooner  risk  the  Constitution.  He 
dwelt  on  the  dilemma  to  which  the  Convention  was  exposed.  By 
agreeing  to  the  clause,  it  would  revolt  the  Quakers,  the  Methodists, 
and  many  others  in  the  Stateshaving  no  slaves.  On  the  other  hand, 
two  States  might  be  lost  to  the  Union.  Let  us  then,  he  said,  try  the 
chance  of  a commitment. 

On  the  question  for  committing  the  remaining  part  of  Sections  4 
and  5,  of  Article  7, — Connecticut,  New  Jersey,  Maryland,  Virginia, 
North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  aye — 7 ; New  Hampshire, 
Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  no — 3;  Massachusetts  absent,  p.  1390—97. 

Friday,  August  24,  1787. 

In  Convention, — Governor  Livingston,  from  the  committee  of  elev- 
en, to  whom  were  referred  the  two  remaining  clauses  of  the  fourth 
section,  and  the  fifth  and  sixth  sections,  of  the  seventh  Article,  deliv- 
ered in  the  following  Report : 

“Strike  out  so  much  of  the  fourth  section  as  was  referred  to  the 
Committee,  and  insert,  ‘ The  migration  or  importation  of  such  persons 
as  the  several  States,  now  existing,  shall  think  proper  to  admit,  shall 
not  be  prohibited  by  the  Legislature  prior  to  the  year  1800  ; but  a 
tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed  on  such  migration  or  importation,  at  a 
rate  not  exceeding  the  average  of  the  duties  laid  on  imports.’ 

3* 


30 


“ The  fifth  Section  to  remain  as  in  the  Report. 

“The  sixtli  Section*  to  be  stricken  out.”  p.  1415. 

Saturday,  August  25,  1787. 

The  Report  of  the  Committee  of  eleven  (see  Friday,  the  twenty- 
fourth)  being  taken  up, — 

Gen.  Pinckney  moved  to  strike  out  the  words,  “the  year  eighteen 
hundred,”  as  the  year  limiting  the  importation  of  slaves  ; and  to  in- 
sert the  words,  “ the  year  eighteen  hundred  and  eight.” 

Mr.  Gorham  seconded  the  motion. 

Mr.  Madison.  Twenty  years  will  produce  all  the  mischief  that 
can  be  apprehended  from  the  liberty  to  import  slaves.  So  long  a 
term  will  be  more  dishonorable  to  the  American  character,  than  to 
say  nothing  about  it  in  the  Constitution. 

On  the  motion,  which  passed  in  the  affirmative, — New-Hampshire, 
Massachusetts, Connecticut,  Maryland, North  Carolina,  South  Carolina, 
Georgia,  aye — 7 ; NewJersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware, Virginia,  no — 4. 

Mr.  Gouverneur  Morris  was  for  making  the  clause  read  at  once, 
“ the  importation  of  slaves  in  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and 
Georgia,  shall  not  be  prohibited,  &c.”  This  he  said,  would  be  most 
fair,  and  would  avoid  the  ambiguity  by  which,  under  the  power  with 
regard  to  naturalization,  the  liberty  reserved  to  the  States  might  be 
defeated.  He  wished  it  to  be  known,  also,  that  this  part  of  the  Con- 
stitution was  a compliance  with  those  States.  If  the  change  of  lan- 
guage, however,  should  be  objected  to,  by  the  members  from  those 
States,  he  should  not  urge  it. 

Col.  Mason  was  not  against  using  the  term  “slaves,”  but  against 
naming  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and  Georgia,  lest  it  should 
give  offence  to  the  people  of  those  States. 

Mr.  Shermau  liked  a description  better  than  the  terms  proposed, 
which  had  been  declined  by  the  old  Congress,  and  were  not  pleasing 
to  some  people. 

M.  Clymer  concurred  with  Mr.  Sherman. 

Mr.  Williamson  said,  that  both  iu  opinion  and  practice  he  was 
against  slavery  ; but  thought  it  more  in  favor  of  humanity,  from  a 
view  of  all  circumstances,  to  let  in  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  on 
those  terms,  than  to  exclude  them  from  the  Union. 

Mr.  Gouverneur  Morris  withdrew  his  motion. 

Mr.  Dickinson  wished  the  clause  to  be  confined  to  the  States  which 
had  not  themselves  prohibited  the  importation  of  slaves;  and  for  that 
purpose  moved  to  amend  the  clause,  so  as  to  read:  “The  importa- 
tion of  slaves  into  such  of  the  States  as  shall  permit  the  same,  shall 
not  be  prohibited  by  the  Legislature  of  the  United  States,  until  the 
year  1808  ;”  which  was  disagreed  to,  nc,m.  con. f 

* [This  sixth  Section  was,“  No  Navigation  act  shall  be  passed  without  the  assent 
of  two-thirds  of  the  members  present  in  each  House.” — Editor.] 

f In  the  printed  Journals,  Connecticut,  Virginia,  and  Georgia,  voted  in  the  affirm- 
ative. 


31 


The  first  part  of  the  Report  was  then  agreed  to,  amended  as  fol- 
lows : “The  migration  or  importation  of  such  persons  as  the  several 
States  now  existing  shall  think  proper  to  admit,  shall  not  be  pro- 
hibited by  the  Legislature  prior  to  the  year  1808,” — 

New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Maryland,  North 
Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  aye — 7 ; New  Jersey,  Pennsylva- 
nia, Delaware,  Virginia,  no — 4. 

Mr.  Baldwin,  in  order  to  restrain  and  mgre  explicitly  define,  “ the 
average  duty,”  moved  to  strike  out  of  the  second  part  the  words, 
“average  of  the  duties  laid  on  imports,”  and  insert  “common  impost 
on  articles  not  enumerated;”  which  was  agreed  to,  uem.,con. 

Mr.  Sherman  was  against  this  second  part,  as  acknowledging  men 
to  be  property,  by  taxiug  them  as  such  under  the  character  of  slaves. 

Mr.  King  and  Mr.  Langdon  considered  this  as  the  price  of  the  first 
part. 

Gen.  Pinckney  admitted  that  it  was  so. 

Col.  Mason.  Not  to  tax,  will  be  equivalent  to  a bounty  on,  the 
importation  of  slaves. 

Mr.  Gorham  thought  that  Mr.  Sherman  should  consider  the  duty, 
not  as  implying  that  slaves  are  property,  but  as  a discouragement  to 
the  importation  of  them. 

Mr  Gouverneur  Morris  remarked,  that,  as  the  clause  now  stands,  it 
implies  that  the  Legislature  may  tax  freemen  imported. 

Mr.  Sherman,  in  answer  to  Mr.  Gorham,  observed,  that  the  small- 
ness of  the  duty  showed  revenue  to  be  the  object,  not  the  discourage- 
ment of  the  importation. 

Mr.  Madison  thought  it  wrong  to  admit  in  the  Constitution  the  idea 
that  there  could  be  property  in  men.  The  reason  of  duties  did  not 
hold,  as  slaves  are  not,  like  merchandize,  consumed,  &c. 

Col.  Mason,  in  answer  to  Mr.  Gouverneur  Morris.  The  provision, 
as  it  stands,  was  necessary  for  the  case  of  convicts,  in  order  to  prevent 
the  introduction  of  them. 

It  was  finally  agreed,  nem.  con-,  to  make  the  clause  read : “ but  a tax 
or  duty  may  be  imposed  on  such  importation,  not  exceeding  ten  dol- 
lars for  each  person;”  and  then  the  second  part,  as  amended,  was 
agreed  to.  pp.  1427  to  30. 

Tuesday,  August  28,  17S7. 

Article  14,  was  then  taken  up. 

General  Pinckney  was  not  satisfied  with  it.  He  seemed  to  wish 
some  provision  should  be  included  in  favor  of  property  in  slaves. 

On  the  question  on  Article  14, — 

New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  New  Jersey,  Penn- 
sylvania, Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  aye — 9 ; 
South  Carolina,  no — 1 ; Georgia,  divided. 

Article  15,  being  theu  taken  up,  the  words,  “high  misdemeanor,” 
were  struck  out,  and  the  words,  “ other  crime,”  inserted,  in  order  to 
comprehend  all  proper  cases;  it  being  doubtful  whether  “ high  mis- 
demeanor” had  not  a technical  meaning  too  limited. 


32 


Mr.  Butler  and  Mr.  Pinckney  moved  to  require  “fugitive  slaves  and 
servants  to  be  delivered  up  like  criminals.” 

Mr.  Wilson.  This  would  oblige  the  Executive  of  the  State  to  do 
it,  at  the  public  expense. 

Mr.  Sherman  saw  no  more  propriety  in  the  public  seizing  and  sur- 
rendering a slave  or  servant,  than  a horse. 

Mr.  Butler  withdrew  his  proposition,  in  order  that  some  particular 
provision  might  be  made,  apart  from  this  article. 

Article  15,  as  amended,  was  then  agreed  to,  nem.  con.  pp.  1447-8. 

Wednesday,  August  29,  1787. 

General  Pinckney  said  it  was  the  true  interest  of  the  Southern 
States  to  have  no  regulation  of  commerce  ; but  considering  the  loss 
brought  on  the  commerce  of  the  Eastern  States  by  the  Revolution, 
their  liberal  conduct  towards  the  views  * of  South  Carolina,  and  the 
interest  the  weak  Southern  States  had  in  being  united  with  the  strong 
Eastern  States,  he  thought  it  proper  that  no  fetters  should  be  imposed 
on  the  power  of  making  commercial  regulations,  and  that  his  constit- 
uents, though  prejudiced  against  the  Eastern  States,  would  be  recon- 
ciled to  this  liberality.  He  had,  himself,  he  said,  prejudices  against 
the  Eastern  States  before  he  came  here,  but  would  acknowledge  that 
he  had  found  them  as  liberal  and  candid  as  any  men  whatever,  p. 
1451. 

Mr.  Butler  moved  to  insert  after  Article  15,  “ If  any  person  bound 
to  service  or  labor  in  any  of  the  United  States,  shall  escape  into  an- 
other State,  he  or  she  shall  not  be  discharged  from  such  service  or 
labor,  in  consequence  of  any  regulations  subsisting  in  the  State  to 
which  they  escape,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  to  the  person  justly 
claiming  their  service  or  labor,” — which  was  agreed  to,  nem.  con.  p. 
1456. 

Monday,  September  10,  1787. 

Mr.  Rutledge  said  he  never  could  agree  to  give  a power  by  which 
the  articles  relating  to  slaves  might  be  altered  by  the  States  not  in- 
terested in  that  property,  and  prejudiced  against  it.  In  order  to  ob- 
viate this  objection,  these  words  were  added  to  the  proposition : “pro- 
vided that  no  amendments,  which  may  be  made  prior  to  the  year 
1808  shall  in  any  manner  affect  the  fourth  and  fifth  sections  of  the 
seventh  Article.”  p.  1536. 

Thursday,  September  13,  1787. 

Article  1,  Section  2.  On  motion  of  Mr.  Randolph,  the  word  “ ser- 
vitude ” was  struck  out,  and  “service”  unanimously  f inserted,  the 
former  being  thought  to  express  the  condition  of  slaves,  and  the  lat- 
ter the  obligations  of  free  persons. 

Mr.  Dickinson  and  Mr.  Wilson  moved  to  strike  out,  “and  direct 

* He  meant  the  permission  to  import  slaves.  An  understanding  on  the  two  sub- 
jects of  navigation  and  slavery,  had  taken  place  between  those  parts  of  the  Union, 
which  explains  the  vote  on  the  motion  depending,  as  well  as  the  language  of  Gener- 
al Pinckney  and  others. 

t See  page  372  of  the  printed  journal. 


33 


taxes,”  from  Article  1,  Section  2,  as  improperly  placed  in  a clause 
relating  merely  to  the  Constitution  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Mr.  Gouverneur  Morris.  The  insertion  here  was  in  consequence 
of  what  had  passed  on  this  point  ; in  order  to  exclude  the  appearance 
of  counting  the  negroes  in  the  representation.  The  including  of  them 
may  now  be  referred  to  the  object  of  direct  taxes,  and  incidentally 
only  to  that  of  representation. 

On  the  motion  to  strike  out,  “ and  direct  taxes,”  from  this  place, — 

New  Jersey,  Delaware,  Maryland,  aye — 3;  New  Hampshire,  Mas- 
sachusetts, Connecticut,  Pennsylvania,  Virginia, North  Carolina,  South 
Carolina,  Georgia,  no — 8.  pp.  1569-70. 

Saturday,  September  15,  1787. 

Article  4,  Section  2,  (the  third  paragraph,)  the  term  “ legally  ” was 
struck  out;  and  the  vvo'-ds,  “under  the  laws  thereof,”  inserted  after 
the  word  “ State,”  in  compliance  with  the  wish  of  some  who  thought 
the  term  legal  equivocal,  and  favoring  the  idea  that  slavery  was  legal 
in  a moral  view.  p.  15S9. 

Mr.  Gerry  stated  the  objections  which  determined  him  to  withhold 
his  name  from  the  Constitution  : 1—2-3— 4— 5-6,  that  three  fifths  of  the 
blacks  are  to  be  represented,  as  if  they  were  freemen,  p.  1595. 


LIST  OF  MEMBERS 

OF  THE  FEDERAL  CONVENTION  WHO  FORMED  THE  CONSTITUTION  OF 


From 

THE  UNITED  STATES. 

Attended. 

New  Hampshire, 

1 John  Langdon, 

July  23, 

John  Pickering, 

2 Nicholas  Gilman, 

“ 23. 

Massachusetts, 

Benjamin  West. 
Francis  Dana, 

El  bridge  Gerry, 

May  29. 

3 Nath’l  Gorham, 

“ 28. 

4 Rufus  King, 

“ 25. 

Caleb  Strong, 

“ 28. 

Rhode  Island, 

(No  appointment.) 

Connecticut, 

5 W.  S.  Johnson, 

June  2. 

6 Roger  Sherman, 
Oliver  Ellsworth, 

May  30. 

“ 29. 

New  York, 

Robert  Yates, 

“ 25. 

7 Alex’r  Hamilton, 

“ 25. 

John  Lansing, 

June  2. 

New  Jersey, 

8 Win.  Livingston, 

“ 5. 

9 David  Brearly, 

May  25. 

Wm.  C.  Houston, 

do. 

10  Wm.  Patterson, 

do. 

John  JYielson, 
Abraham  Clark. 

11  Jonathan  Dayton, 

June  21. 

Pennsylvania, 

12  Benj.  Franklin, 

May  28. 

13  Thos.  Miffin, 

do. 

34 


From 

Attended. 

Pennsylvania. 

]4  Robert  Morris, 

May  25. 

15  Geo.  Clymer, 

“ 28. 

16  Thos.  Fitzsimons, 

“ 25. 

17  Jared  Ingersoll, 

“ 28. 

18  James  Wilson, 

“ 25. 

19  Gouv’r  Morris, 

“ 25. 

Delaware, 

20  Geo.  Reed, 

“ 25. 

21  G.  Bedford,  Jr. 

“ 28. 

22  John  Dickinson, 

« 28. 

23  Richard  Bassett, 

“ 25. 

24  Jacob  Broom, 

“ 25. 

Maryland, 

25  James  M’Henry, 

26  Daniel  of  St.  Tho. 

“ 29. 

Jenifer, 

June  2. 

27  Daniel  Carroll, 

July  9. 

John  F.  Mercer, 

Aug.  6. 

Luther  Martin, 

June  9. 

Virginia, 

28  G.  Washington, 

May  25. 

) 

Patrick  Henry , (declined. 

Edmund  Randolph, 

“ 25. 

29  John  Blair, 

“ 25. 

30  Jas.  Madison,  Jr. 

“ 25. 

George  Mason, 

“ 25. 

George  Wythe, 

James  McClurg,  (in 

“ 25. 

room  P.  Henry) 

“ 25. 

North  Carolina, 

Rich’d  Caswell  (resigned). 

Alex’r  Martin, 

May  25. 

Win,  R.  Davie, 

31  Wm.  Blount  (in  room 

« 25. 

of  R.  Caswell), 

Willie  Jones  (declined). 

June  20. 

32  R.  D.  Spaight, 

33  Hugh  Williamson,  (in 

May  25. 

room  of  W.  Jones,) 

May  25. 

South  Carolina, 

34  John  Rutledge, 

“ 25. 

35  Chas.  C.  Pinckney, 

“ 25. 

36  Chas.  Pinckney, 

“ 25. 

37  Peirce  Butler, 

“ 25. 

Georgia, 

38  William  Few, 

“ 25. 

39  Abr’m  Baldwin, 

June  11. 

William  Pierce, 

George  Walton. 

May  31. 

Wm.  Houston, 

JValh'l  Pendleton. 

June  1. 

Those  with  numbers  before  their  names  signed  the  Consti- 
tution. 

Those  in  italics  never  attended. 

Members  who  attended,  but  did  not  sign  the  Constitution, 


^050® 


35 


Extract  from  a Speech  of  Luther  Martin,  (delivered  before  the 

Legislature  of  Maryland,)  one  of  the  delegates  from  Maryland  to 

the  Convention  that  formed  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

With  respect  to  that  part  of  the  second  section  of  the  first  Article, 
which  relates  to  the  apportionment  of  representation  and  direct  taxa- 
tion, there  were  considerable  objections  made  to  it,  besides  the  great 
objection  of  inequality  — It  was  urged,  that  no  principle  could  justify 
taking  slaves  into  computation  in  apportioning  the  number  of  repre- 
sentatives a state  should  have  in  the  government — That  it  involved 
the  absurdity  of  increasing  the  power  of  a state  in  making  laws  for 
free  men  in  proportion  as  that  State  violated  the  rights  of  freedom  — 
That  it  might  be  proper  to  take  slaves  into  consideration,  when  taxes 
were  to  be  apportioned,  because  it  had  a tendency  to  discourage 
slavery ; but  to  take  them  into  account  in  giving  representation  tended 
to  encourage  the  slave  trade,  and  to  make  it  the  interest  of  the  states  to 
continue  that  infamous  traffic  — That  slaves  could  not  be  taken  into 
account  as  men,  or  citizens,  because  they  were  not  admitted  to  the 
rights  of  citizens,  in  the  states  which  adopted  or  continued  slavery  — 
If  they  were  to  be  taken  into  account  as  property,  it  was  asked,  what 
peculiar  circumstance  should  render  this  property  (of  all  others  the 
most  odious  in  its  nature)  entitled  to  the  high  privilege  of  conferring 
consequence  and  power  in  the  government  to  its  possessors,  rather 
than  any  other  property : and  why  slaves  should,  as  property,  be  taken 
into  account  rather  than  horses,  cattle,  mules,  or  any  other  species; 
and  it  was  observed  by  an  honorable  member  from  Massachusetts,, 
that  he  considered  it  as  dishonorable  and  humiliating  to  enter  into 
compact  with  the  slaves  of  the  southern  states,  as  it  would  with  the 
horses  and  mules  of  the  eastern. 

By  the  ninth  section  of  this  Article,  the  importation  of  such  per- 
sons as  any  of  the  States  now  existing,  shall  think  proper  to  admit, 
shall  not  be  prohibited  prior  to  the  year  1808,  but  a duty  may  be 
imposed  on  such  importation,  not  exceeding  ten  dollars  for  each 
person. 

The  design  of  this  clause  is  to  prevent  the  general  government 
from  prohibiting  the  importation  of  slaves;  but  the  same  reasons 
which  caused  them  to  strike  out  the  word  “ national,”  and  not  admit 
the  word  “stamps,”  influenced  them  here  to  guard  against  the  word 
“ slaves."  They  anxiously  sought  to  avoid  the  admission  of  expressions 
which  might  be  odious  in  the  ears  of  Americans,  although  they  were 
willing  to  admit  into  their  system  those  things  which  the  expression 
signified  ; and  hence  it  is  that  the  elause  is  so  worded  as  really  to 
authorize  the  general  government  to  impose  a duty  of  ten  dollars  on 
every  foreigner  who  comes  into  a State  to  become  a citizen,  whether 
he  comes  absolutely  free,  or  qualifiedly  so  as  a servant;  although  this 
is  contrary  to  the  design  of  the  framers,  and  the  duty  was  only  meant 
to  extend  to  the  importation  of  slaves. 


36 


This  clause  was  the  subject  of  a great  diversity  of  sentiment  in  the 
Convention.  As  the  system  was  reported  by  the  committee  of  detail, 
the  provision  was  general,  that  such  importation  should  not  be  pro- 
hibited, without  confining  it  to  any  particular  period.  This  was  re- 
jected by  eight  States — Georgia,  South  Carolina,  and,  I think,  North 
Carolina,  voting  for  it. 

We  were  then  told  by  the  delegates  of  the  two  first  of  those  states, 
that  their  states  would  never  agree  to  a system,  which  put  it  in  the 
power  of  the  general  government  to  prevent  the  importation  of  slaves, 
aud  that  they,  as  delegates  from  those  states,  must  withhold  their 
assent  from  such  a system. 

A committee  of  one  member  from  each  State  was  chosen  by  ballot, 
to  take  this  part  of  the  system  under  their  consideration,  and  to  en- 
deavor to  agree  upon  some  report,  which  should  reconcile  those 
States.  To  this  committee  also  was  referred  the  following  proposi- 
tion, which  had  been  reported  by  the  committee  of  detail,  to  wit: 
“ No  navigation  act  shall  be  passed  without  the  assent  of  two-thirds  of 
the  members  present  in  each  house;”  a proposition  which  the  staple 
and  commercial  States  were  solicitous  to  retain,  lest  their  commerce 
should  be  placed  too  much  under  the  power  of  the  Eastern  States  ; 
but  which  these  last  States  were  as  anxious  to  reject.  This  com- 
mittee, of  which  also  I had  the  honor  to  be  a member,  met  and  took 
under  their  consideration  the  subjects  committed  to  them.  I found 
the  eastern  States,  notwithstanding  their  aversion  to  slavery,  were  very 
willing  to  indulge  the  southern  States,  at  least  witli  a temporary  lib- 
erty to  prosecute  the  slave  trade,  provided  the  southern  states  would 
in  their  turn  gratify  them,  by  laying  no  restriction  on  navigation  acts  ; 
and  after  a very  little  time,  the  committee,  by  a great  majority,  agreed 
on  a report,  by  which  the  general  government  was  to  be  prohibited 
from  preventing  the  importation  of  slaves  for  a limited  time,  and  the 
restricted  clause  relative  to  navigation  acts  was  to  be  omitted. 

This  report  was  adopted  by  a majority  of  the  Convention,  but  not 
without  considerable  opposition. 

It  was  said,  we  had  just  assumed  a place  among  independent  na- 
tions in  consequence  of  our  opposition  to  the  attempts  of  Great  Brit- 
ain to  enslave  us;  that  this  opposition  was  grounded  upon  the  preser- 
vation of  those  rights  to  which  God  and  nature  had  entitled  us,  not 
in  particular,  but  in  common  with  all  the  rest  of  mankind  ; that  we  had 
appealed  to  the  Supreme  Being  for  his  assistance,  as  the  God  of  free- 
dom, who  coidd  not  but  approve  our  efforts  to  preserve  the  rights 
which  he  had  thus  imparted  to  his  creatures;  that  now,  when  we  had 
scarcely  risen  from  our  knees,  from  supplicating  his  mercy  and  pro- 
tection in  forming  our  government  over  a free  people,  a government 
formed  pretendedly  on  t lie  principles  of  liberty,  and  for  its  preserva- 
tion,— in  that,  government  to  have  a provision  not  only  putting  it  out 
of  its  power  to  restrain  and  prevent  the  slave  trade,  even  encour- 
aging that  most  infamous  traffic,  by  giving  the  States  the  power  and 
influence  in  the  Union  in  proportion  as  they  cruelly  and  wantonly 


37 


sported  with  the  rights  of  their  fellow-creatures,  ought  to  he  consid- 
ered as  a solemn  mockery  of,  and  an  insult  to,  that  God  whose  pro- 
tection we  had  then  implored,  and  could  not  fail  to  hold  us  up  in 
detestation,  and  render  us  contemptible  to  every  true  friend  of  liberty 
in  the  world.  It  was  said,  it  ought  to  lie  considered  that  national 
crimes  can  only  be,  and  frequently  are,  punished  in  this  world  by 
national  punishments  ; anil  that  the  continuance  of  the  slave  trade, 
and  thus  giving  it  a national  sanction,  and  encouragement,  ought  to 
be  considered  as  justly  exposing  us  to  the  displeasure  and  vengeance 
of  him  who  is  equally  Lord  of  all,  and  who  views  with  equal  eye 
the  poor  African  slave  and  his  American  master  ! 

It  was  urged  that  by  this  system,  we  were  giving  the  general  gov- 
ernment full  and  absolute  power  to  regulate  commerce,  under  which 
general  power  it  would  have  a right  to  restrain,  or  totally  prohibit,  the 
slave  trade:  it  must,  therefore,  appear  to  the  world  absurd  and  dis- 
graceful to  the  last  degree,  that  we  should  except  from  the  exercise 
of  that  [tower,  the  only  branch  of  commerce  which  is  unjustifiable  in 
its  nature,  and  contrary  to  the  rights  of  mankind.  That,  on  the  con- 
trary, we  ought  rather  to  prohibit  expressly  in  our  Constitution,  the 
further  importation  of  slaves,  and  to  authorize  the  general  government, 
from  time  to  time,  to  make  such  regulations  as  should  be  thought 
most  advantageous  for  the  gradual  abolition  of  slavery,  and  the  eman- 
cipation of  the  slaves  which  are  already  in  the  States.  That  s'lavery 
is  inconsistent  with  the  genius  of  republicanism,  and  has  a tendency  to 
destroy  those  principles  on  which  it  is  supported,  as  it  lessens  the 
sense  of  the  equal  rights  of  mankind,  and  habituates  us  to  tyranny 
and  oppression.  It  was  further  urged,  that,  by  this  system  of  govern- 
ment, every  State  is  to  be  protected  both  from  foreign  invasion  and 
from  domestic  insurrections ; from  this  consideration,  it  was  of  the 
utmost  importance  it  should  have  a power  to  restrain  the  importation 
of  slaves,  since,  in  proportion  as  the  number  of  slaves  are  increased  in 
any  State,  in  the  same  proportion  the  State  is  weakened  and  exposed 
to  foreign  invasion  or  domestic  insurrection,  and  by  so  much  less 
will  it  he  able  to  protect  itself  against  either,  and  therefore  will  by 
so  the  much  want  aid  from,  and  be  a burden  to,  the  Union. 

It  was  further  said,  that,  as  in  this  system  we  were  giving  the  gene- 
ral government  a power,  under  the  idea  of  national  character,  or  na- 
tional interest,  to  regulate  even  our  weights  and  measures,  and  have 
prohibited  all  possibility  of  emitting  paper  money,  and  passing  insol- 
vent laws,  &c.,  it  must  appear  still  more  extraordinary,  that  we  should 
prohibit  the  government  from  interfering  with  the  slave  trade,  than 
which  nothing  could  so  materially  affect  both  our  national  honor  and 
interest. 

These  reasons  influenced  me,  both  on  the  committee  and  in  con- 
vention, most  decidedly  to  oppose  and  vote  against  the  clause,  as  it 
now  makes  part  of  the  system. 

You  will  perceive,  sir,  not  only  that  the  general  government  is  pro- 
hibited from  interfering  in  the  slave-trade  before  the  year  eighteen 
4 


38 


hundred  and  eight,  but  that  there  is  no  provision  in  the  Constitution 
that  it  shall  afterwards  be  prohibited,  nor  any  security  that  such  pro- 
hibition will  ever  take  place;  and  I think  there  is  great  reason  to 
believe,  that,  if  the  importation  of  slaves  is  permitted  until  the  year 
eighteen  hundred  and  eight,  it  will  not  be  prohibited  afterwards.  At 
this  time,  we  do  not  generally  hold  this  commerce  in  so  great  abhor- 
rence as  we  have  done.  When  our  liberties  were  at  stake,  we 
warmly  felt  for  the  common  rights  of  men.  The  danger  being 
thought  to  be  past,  which  threatened  ourselves,  we  are  daily  growing 
more  insensible  to  those  rights.  In  those  States  which  have  restrain- 
ed or  prohibited  the  importation  of  slaves,  it  is  only  done  by  legislative 
acts,  which  may  be  repealed.  When  those  States  find  that  they  must, 
in  their  national  character  and  connexion,  suffer  in  the  disgrace,  and 
share  in  the  inconveniences  attendant  upon  that  detestable  and  iniqui- 
tous traffic,  they  may  be  desirous  also  to  share  in  the  benefits  arising 
from  it ; and  the  odium  attending  it  will  be  greatly  effaced  by  the  sanc- 
tion which  is  given  to  it  in  the  general  government. 

By  the  next  paragraph,  the  general  government  is  to  have  a power 
of  suspending  the  habeas  corpus  act,  in  cases  of  rebellion  or  invasion. 

As  the  State  governments  have  a power  of  suspending  the  habeas 
corpus  act  in  those  cases,  it  was  said,  there  could  be  no  reason  for 
giving  such  a power  to  the  general  government;  since,  whenever  the 
State  vtfhieh  is  invaded,  or  in  which  an  insurrection  takes  place,  finds 
its  safety  requires  it,  it  will  make  use  of  that  power.  And  it  was 
urged,  that  if  we  gave  this  power  to  the  general  government,  it  would 
bean  engine  of  oppression  in  its  hands;  since  whenever  a State 
should  oppose  its  views,  however  arbitrary  and  unconstitutional,  and 
refuse  submission  to  them,  the  general  government  may  declare  it  to 
be  an  act  of  rebellion,  and,  suspending  the  habeas  corpus  act,  may 
seize  upon  the  persons  of  those  advocates  of  freedom,  who  have  had 
virtue  and  resolution  enough  to  excite  the  opposition,  and  may  im- 
prison them  during  its  pleasure  in  the  remotest  part  of  the  Union; 
so  that  a citizen  of  Georgia  might  be  bastiled  in  the  furthest  part  of 
New  Hampshire  ; or  a citizen  of  New  Hampshire  in  the  furthest 
extreme  of  the  South,  cut  off  from  their  family,  their  friends,  and 
their  every  connexion.  These  considerations  induced  me,  sir,  to 
give  my  negative  also  to  this  clause. 


39 


EXTRACTS 

FROM 

DEBATES  IN  THE  SEVERAL  STATE  CONVENTIONS 

ON  THE  ADOPTION  OF 

THE  UNITED  STATES’  CONSTITUTION. 


MASSACHUSETTS  CONVENTION. 

The  third  paragraph  of  the  2d  section  being  read, 

Mr.  King  rose  to  explain  it.  There  has,  says  he,  been  much  mis- 
conception of  this  section.  It  is  a principle  of  this  Constitution,  that 
representation  and  taxation  should  to  ha  id  in  hand.  This  paragraph 
states,  that  the  numbers  of  free  persons  shall  be  determined,  by  add- 
ing to  the  whole  number  of  free  persons,  including  those  bound  to 
service  for  a term  of  years,  and  excluding  Indians  not  taxed,  tbree- 
fifths  of  all  other  persons.  These  persons  are  the  slaves.  By  this 
rule  is  representation  and  taxation  to  be  apportioned.  And  it  was 
adopted,  because  it  was  the  language  of  all  America. 

Mr.  Widgery  asked,  if  a boy  of  six  years  of  age  was  to  be  consid- 
ered as  a free  person  ? 

Mr.  King  in  answer  said,  all  persons  born  free  were  to  be  consid- 
ered as  freemen  ; and  to  make  the  idea  of  taxation  by  numbers  more 
intelligible,  said  that  five  negro  children  of  South  Carolina,  are  to  pay 
as  much  tax  as  the  three  Governors  of  New  Hampshire,  Massachu- 
setts, and  Connecticut. 

Mr  Gorham  thought  the  proposed  section  much  in  favor  of  Massa- 
chusetts ; and  if  it  operated  against  any  state,  it  was  Pennsylvania, 
because  they  have  more  white  persons  bound  than  any  other. 

Judge  Dana,  in  reply  to  the  remark  of  some  gentlemen,  that  the 
southern  States  were  favored  in  this  mode  of  apportionment,  by  hav- 
ing five  of  their  negroes  set  against  three  persons  in  the  eastern,  the 
honorable  judge  observed,  that  the  negroes  of  the  southern  States 
work  no  longer  than  when  the  eye  of  the  driver  is  on  them.  Can, 
asked  he,  that  land  flourish  like  this,  which  is  cultivated  by  the  hands 
of  freemen?  Are  not  three  of  these  independent  freemen  of  more 
real  advantage  to  a State,  than  Jive  of  those  poor  slaves  ? 

Mr.  Nasson  remarked  on  the  statement  of  the  honorable  Mr.  King, 
by  saying  that  the  honorable  gentleman  should  have  gone  further, 
and  shown  us  the  other  side  of  the  question.  It  is  a good  rule  that 
works  both  ways — and  the  gentlemen  should  also  have  told  us,  that 
three  of  our  infants  in  the  cradle,  are  to  be  rated  as  high  as  five  of  the 
working  negroes  of  Virginia.  Mr.  N.  adverted  to  a statement  of  Mr. 


40 


Kin",  wlio  had  said,  that  five  negro  children  of  South  Carolina  were 
equally  rateable  as  three  governors  of  New  England,  and  wished,  he 
said,  the  honorable  gentleman  had  considered  this  question  upon  the 
other  side — as  it  would  then  appear  that  this  State  will  pay  as  great 
a tax  for  three  children  in  the  cradle,  as  any  of  the  southern  States 
will  for  five  hearty  working  negro  men.  He  hoped,  he  said,  while 
we  were  making  a new  government,  we  should  make  it  better  than 
the  old  one:  for  if  we  had  made  a bad  bargain  before,  as  had  been 
hinted,  it  was  a reason  why  we  should  make  a better  one  now. 

Mr.  Dawes  said,  he  was  sorry  to  hear  so  many  objections  raised 
against  the  paragraph  under  consideration.  He  thought  them  wholly 
unfounded  ; that  the  black  inhabitants  of  the  southern  States  must  be 
considered  either  as  slaves,  and  as  so  much  property,  or  in  the  char- 
acter of  so  many  freemen  ; if  the  former,  why  should  they  not  be 
wholly  represented  ? Our  own  State  laws  and  Constitution  would 
lead  us  to  consider  those  blacks  as  freemen,  and  so  indeed  would  our 
own  ideas  of  natural  justice : if,  then,  they  are  freemen,  they  might 
form  an  equal  basis  for  representation  as  though  they  were  all  white 
inhabitants.  In  either  view,  therefore,  he  could  not  see  that  the 
northern  States  would  suffer,  but  directly  to  the  contrary.  He  thought, 
however,  that  gentlemen  would  do  well  to  connect  the  passage  in 
dispute  with  another  article  in  the  Constitution,  that  permits  Congress, 
in  the  year  1808,  wholly  to  prohibit  the  importation  of  slaves,  and  in 
the  mean  time  to  impose  a duty  of  ten  dollars  a head  on  such  blacks 
as  should  be  imported  before  that  period.  Besides,  by  the  new  Con- 
stitution, every  particular  State  is  left  to  its  own  option  totally  to  pro- 
hibit the  introduction  of  slaves  into  its  own  territories.  What  could 
the  convention  do  more?  The  members  of  the  southern  States,  like 
ourselves,  have  their  prejudices.  It  would  not  do  to  abolish  slavery, 
by  an  act  of  Congress,  in  a moment,  and  so  destroy  what  our  south- 
ern brethren  consider  as  property.  But  we  may  say,  that  although 
slavery  is  not  smitten  by  an  apoplexy,  yet  it  has  received  a mortal 
wound  and  will  die  of  a consumption. 

Mr.  Neal  (from  Kittery,)  went  over  the  ground  of  objection  to  this 
section  on  the  idea  that  the  slave  trade  was  allowed  to  be  continued 
for  20  years.  His  profession,  he  said,  obliged  him  to  bear  witness 
against  any  thing  that  should  favor  the  making  merchandise  of  the 
bodies  of  men,  and  unless  his  objection  was  removed,  he  could  not 
put  his  hand  to  the  Constitution.  Other  gentlemen  said,  in  addition 
to  this  idea,  that  there  was  not  even  a proposition  that  the  negroes 
ever  shall  be  free,  and  Gen.  Thompson  exclaimed  : 

Mr.  President,  shall  it  be  said,  that  after  we  have  established  our 
own  independence  and  freedom,  we  make  slaves  of  others?  Oh! 
Washington,  what  a name  has  he  had  ! How  he  has  immortalized 
himself!  but  he  holds  those  in  slavery  who  have  a good  right  to  be 
free  as  he  has — he  is  still  for  self;  and,  in  my  opinion,  his  character 
has  sunk  50  per  cent. 

On  the  other  side,  gentlemen  said,  that  the  step  taken  in  this  arti- 


41 


cle,  towards  the  abolition  of  slavery,  was  one  of  the  beauties  of  the 
Constitution.  They  observed,  that  in  the  confederation  there  was  no 
provision  whatever  for  its  ever  being  abolished  ; but  this  Constitution 
provides,  that  Congress  may,  after  20  years,  totally  annihilate  the 
slave  trade;  and  that,  as  all  the  States,  except  two,  have  passed  laws 
to  this  effect,  it  might  reasonably  be  expected,  that  it  would  then  be 
done.  In  the  interim,  all  the  States  were  at  liberty  to  prohibit  it. 

Saturday,  January  26. — [The  debate  - on  the  9th  section  still 
continued  desultory — and  consisted  of  similar  objections,  and  answers 
thereto,  as  had  before  been  used.  Both  sides  deprecated  the  slave 
trade  in  the  most  pointed  terms  ; on  one  side  it  was  pathetically  la- 
mented, by  Mr.  Nason.  Major  Lusk,  Mr.  Neal,  and  others,  that  this 
Constitution  provided  for  the  continuation  ot‘  the  slave  trade  for  20 
years.  On  the  other,  the  honorable  Judge  Dana,  Mr.  Adams  and 
others,  rejoiced  that  a door  w-as  now  to  be  opened  for  the  annihilation 
of  this  odious,  abhorrent  practice,  in  a certain  time.] 

Gen.  Heath.  Mr.  President, — By  my  indisposition  and  absence,  I 
have  lost  several  important  opportunities:  1 have  lost  the  opportunity 
of  expressing  my  Sentiments  with  a candid  freedom,  on  some  of  the 
paragraphs  of  the  system,  which  have  lain  heavy  on  my  mind.  I 
have  lost  the  opportunity  of  expressing  my  warm  approbation  on 
some  of  the  paragraphs.  I have  lost  the  opportunity  of  hearing  those 
judicious,  enlightening  and  convincing  arguments,  which  have  been 
advanced  during  the  investigation  of  the  system.  This  is  my  misfor- 
tune, and  I must  bear  it.  The  paragraph  respecting  the  migration 
or  importation  of  such  persons  as  any  of  the  States  now  existing  shall 
think  proper  to  admit,  &c.,  is  one  of  those  considered  during  my  ab- 
sence, and  I have  heard  nothing  on  the  subject,  save  what  has  been 
mentioned  this  morning;  but  I think  the  gentlemen  who  have  spoken, 
have  carried  the  matter  rather  too  far  on  both  sides.  I apprehend 
that  it  is  not  in  our  power  to  do  any  thing  for  or  against  those  who 
are  in  slavery  in  the  southern  States.  No  gentleman  within  these 
w alls  detests  every  idea  of  slavery  more  than  I do : it  is  generally 
detested  by  the  people  of  this  Commonwealth  ; and  I ardently  hope 
that  the  time  will  soon  come,  when  our  brethren  in  the  southern 
States  will  view  it  as  we  do,  and  put  a stop  to  it;  but  to  this  we  have 
no  right  to  compel  them.  Two  questions  naturally  arise:  if  we 
ratify  the  Constitution,  shall  we  do  any  thing  by  our  act  to  hold  the 
blacks  in  slavery — or  shall  we  become  the  partakers  of  other  men’s 
sins?  I think  neither  of  them.  Each  State  is  sovereign  and  inde- 
pendent to  a certain  degree,  and  they  have  a right,  and  will  regulate 
their  own  internal  affairs,  as  to  themselves  appears  proper  ; and  shall 
we  refuse  to  eat,  or  to  drink,  or  to  be  united,  with  those  who  do  not 
think,  or  act,  just  as  we  do?  surely  not.  We  are  not  in  this  case 
partakers  of  other  men’s  sins,  for  in  nothing  do  we  voluntarily  en- 
courage the  slavery  of  our  fellow-men  ; a restriction  is  laid  on  the 
Federal  Government,  which  could  not  be  avoided,  and  a union  take 
place.  The  Federal  Convention  went  as  far  as  they  could ; the  mi- 

4* 


42 


gration  or  importation,  &c.,  is  confined  to  the  States,  now  existing 
only,  new  States  cannot  claim  it.  Congress,  by  their  ordinance  for 
erecting  new  States,  some  time  since,  declared  that  the  new  States 
shall  be  republican,  and  that  there  shall  be  no  slavery  in  them.  But 
whether  those  in  slavery  in  the  southern  States  will  be  emancipated 
after  the  year  180S,  I do  not  pretend  to  determine:  I rather  doubt  it. 

Mr.  Neal  rose  and  said,  that  as  the  Constitution  at  large,  was  now 
under  consideration,  he  would  just  remark,  that  the  article  which 
respected  the  Africans,  was  the  one  which  laid  on  his  mind — and, 
unless  his  objections  to  that  were  removed,  it  must,  how  much  soever 
he  liked  the  other  parts  of  the  Constitution,  be  a sufficient  reason  for 
him  to  give  his  negative  to  it. 

Major  Lusk  concurred  in  the  idea  already  thrown  out  in  the  debate, 
that  although  the  insertion  of  the  amendments  in  the  Constitution  was 
devoutly  wished,  yet  he  did  not  see  any  reason  to  suppose  they  ever 
would  be  adopted.  Turning  from  the  subject  of  amendments,  the 
Major  entered  largely  into  the  consideration  of  the  9th  section,  and  in 
the  most  pathetic  and  feeling  manner,  described  the  miseries  of  the 
poor  natives  of  Africa,  who  are  kidnapped  and  sold  for  slaves.  With 
the  brightest  colors  he  painted  their  happiness  and  ease  on  their 
native  shores,  and  contrasted  them  with  their  wretched,  miserable  and 
unhappy  condition,  in  a state  of  slavery. 

Rev.  Mr.  Backus.  Much,  sir,  has  been  said  about  the  importation 
of  slaves  into  this  country.  I believe  that,  according  to  my  capacity, 
no  man  abhors  that  wicked  practice  more  than  I do,  and  would  gladly 
make  use  of  all  lawful  means  towards  the  abolishing  of  slavery  in  all 
parts  of  the  land.  But  let  us  consider  where  we  are,  and  what  we 
are  doing.  In  the  articles  of  confederation,  no  provision  was  made 
to  hinder  the  importation  of  slaves  into  any  of  these  States:  but  a 
door  is  now  opened  hereafter  to  do  it ; and  each  State  is  at  liberty 
now  to  abolish  slavery  as  soon  as  they  please.  And  let  us  remember 
our  former  connexion  with  Great  Britain,  from  whom  many  in  our 
land  think  we  ought  not  to  have  revolted.  How  did  they  carry  on 
the  slave  trade!  I know  that  the  Bishop  of  Gloucester,  in  an  annual 
sermon  in  London,  in  February,  1766,  endeavored  to  justify  their 
tyrannical  claims  of  power  over  us,  by  casting  the  reproach  of  the 
slave  trade  upon  the  Americans.  But  at  the  close  of  the  war,  the 
Bishop  of  Chester,  in  an  annual  sermon,  in  February,  1783,  ingen- 
uously owned,  that  their  nation  is  the  most  deeply  involved  in  the 
guilt  of  that  trade,  of  any  nation  in  the  world ; and  also,  that  they 
have  treated  their  slaves  in  the  West  Indies  worse  than  the  French 
or  Spaniards  have  done  theirs.  Thus  slavery  grows  more  and  more 
odious  through  the  world  ; and,  as  an  honorable  gentleman  said  some 
days  ago,  “Though  w’e  cannot  say  that  slavery  is  struck  with  an 
apoplexy,  yet  we  may  hope  it  will  die  with  a consumption.”  And  a 
main  source,  sir,  of  that  iniquity,  bath  been  an  abuse  of  the  covenant 
of  circumcision,  which  gave  the  seed  of  Abraham  to  destroy  the  in- 
habitants of  Canaan,  and  to  take  their  houses,  vineyards,  and  all  their 


43 


estates,  as  their  own  ; and  also  to  buy  and  hold  others  as  servants. 
And  as  Christian  privileges  are  greater  than  those  of  the  Hebrews 
were,  many  have  imagined  that  they  had  a right  to  seize  upon  the 
lands  of  the  heathen,  and  to  destroy  or  enslave  them  as  far  as  they 
could  extend  their  power.  And  from  thence  the  mystery  of  iniquity, 
carried  many  into  the  practice  of  making  merchandise  of  slaves  and 
souls  of  ineu.  But  all  ought  to  remember,  that  when  God  promised 
the  land  of  Canaan  to  Abraham  and  his  seed,  he  let  him  know  that 
they  were  not  to  take  possession  of  that  land,  until  the  iniquity  of  the 
Amorites  was  full;  and  then  they  did  it  under  the  immediate  direc- 
tion of  Heaven;  and  they  were  as  real  executors  of  the  judgment  of 
God  upon  those  heathens,  as  any  person  ever  was  an  executor  of  a 
criminal  justly  condemned.  And  in  doing  it  they  were  not  allowed 
to  invade  the  lauds  of  the  Edomites,  who  sprang  from  Esau,  who  was 
not  only  of  the  seed  of  Abraham,  but  was  born  at  the  same  birth  with 
Israel ; and  yet  they  were  not  of  that  church.  Neither  were  Israel 
allowed  to  invade  the  lands  of  t lie  Moabites,  or  of  the  children  of 
Ammon,  who  were  of  the  seed  of  Lot.  And  no  officer  in  Israel  had 
any  legislative  power,  but  such  as  were  immediately  inspired.  Even 
David,  the  man  after  God’s  own  heart,  had  no  legislative  power,  but 
only  as  he  was  inspired  from  above  : and  he  is  expressly  called  a 
prophet  in  the  New  Testament.  And  we  are  to  remember  that  Abra- 
ham and  his  seed,  for  four  hundred  years,  had  no  warrant  to  admit 
any  strangers  into  that  church,  but  by  buying  of  him  as  a servant, 
with  money.  And  it  was  a great  privilege  to  be  bought,  and  adopted 
into  a religious  family  for  seven  years,  and  then  to  have  their  free- 
dom. And  that  covenant  was  expressly  repealed  in  various  parts  of 
the  New  Testament ; and  particularly  in  the  first  epistle  to  the  Cor- 
inthians, wherein  it  is  said — Ye  are  bought  with  a price;  therefore 
glorify  God  in  your  body,  and  in  your  spirit,  which  are  God’s.  And 
again — Circumcision  is  nothing,  and  uncircumcision  is  nothing,  but 
keeping  of  the  commandments  of  God.  Ye  are  bought  with  a price; 
be  not  ye  the  servants  of  men.  Thus  the  gospel  sets  all  men  upon  a 
level,  very  contrary  to  the  declaration  of  an  honorable  gentleman  in 
this  house,  “ that  the  Bible  was  contrived  for  the  advantage  of  a par- 
ticular order  of  men.” 


NEW  YORK  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Smith.  He  would  now  proceed  to  state  his  objections  to  the 
clause  just  read,  (section  2,  of  article  1,  clause  3.)  His  objections 
were  comprised  under  three  heads:  1st,  the  rule  of  apportionment  is 
unjust;  2d,  there  is  no  precise  number  fixed  on,  below  which  the 
house  shall  not  be  reduced;  3d,  it  is  inadequate.  In  the  first  place, 
the  rule  of  apportionment  of  the  representatives  is  to  be  according  to 
the  whole  number  of  the  white  inhabitants,  with  three-fifths  of  all 
others;  that  is,  in  plain  English,  each  State  is  to  send  representatives 
in  proportion  to  the  number  of  freemen,  and  three-fifths  of  the  slaves 
it  contains.  He  could  not  see  any  rule  by  which  slaves  were  to  be 


44 


included  in  the  ratio  of  representation  ; — the  principle  of  a represen- 
tation being  that  every  free  agent  should  be  concerned  in  governing 
himself,  it  was  absurd  to  give  that  power  to  a man  who  could  not 
exercise  it — slaves  have  no  will  of  their  own:  the  very  operation  of 
it  was  to  give  certain  privileges  to  those  people,  who  were  so  wicked 
as  to  keep  slaves,  lie  knew  it  would  be  admitted,  that  this  rule  of 
apportionment  was  founded  on  unjust  principles,  but  that  it  was  the 
result  of  accommodation ; which,  he  supposed,  we  should  be  under 
the  necessity  of  admitting,  if  we  meant  to  be  in  union  with  the  south- 
ern States,  though  utterly  repugnant  to  his  feelings. 

Mr.  Hamilton.  In  order  that  the  committee  may  understand 
clearly  the  principles  on  which  the  General  Convention  acted,  I think 
it  necessary  to  explain  some  preliminary  circumstances. 

Sir,  the  natural  situation  of  this  country  seems  to  divide  its  inter- 
ests into  different  classes.  There  are  navigating  and  non-navigating 
States  — the  Northern  are  properly  the  navigating  States  : the  South- 
ern appear  to  possess  neither  the  means  nor  the  spirit  of  navigation. 
Tliis  difference  of  situation  naturally  produces  a dissimilarity  of 
interest  atul  views  respecting  foreign  commerce.  It  was  the  interest 
of  the  Northern  States  that  there  should  be  no  restraints  on  their 
navigation,  and  that  they  should  have  full  power,  by  a majority  in 
Congress,  to  make  commercial  regulations  in  favor  of  their  own,  and 
in  restraint  of  the  navigation  of  foreigners.  The  Southern  States 
wished  to  impose  a restraint  on  the  Northern,  by  requiring  that  two- 
thirds  iti  Congress  should  he  requisite  to  pass  an  act  in  regulation  of 
commerce:  they  were  appprehensive  that  the  restraints  of  a naviga- 
tion law  would  discourage  foreigners,  and  by  obliging  them  to  employ 
the  shipping  of  the  Northern  States  would  probably  enhance  their 
freight.  This  being  the  case,  they  insisted  strenuously  on  having 
this  provision  engrafted  in  the  constitution  ; and  the  Northern  States 
were  as  anxious  in  opposing  it.  On  the  other  hand,  the  small  States 
seeing  themselves  embraced  by  the  confederation  upon  equal  terms, 
wished  to  retain  the  advantages  which  they  already  possessed  : the 
large  States,  on  the  contrary,  thought  it  improper  that  Rhode  Island 
and  Delaware  should  enjoy  an  equal  suffrage  with  themselves  : from 
these  sources  a delicate  and  difficult  contest  arose.  It  became  neces- 
sary, therefore,  to  compromise  ; or  the  Convention  must  have 
dissolved  without  effecting  any  thing.  Would  it  have  been  wise  and 
prudent  in  that  body,  in  this  critical  situation,  to  have  deserted  their 
country?  No.  Every  man  who  hears  me — every  wise  man  in  the 
United  States,  would  have  condemned  them.  The  Convention  were 
obliged  to  appoint  a committee  for  accommodation.  In  this  com- 
mittee the  arrangement  was  formed  as  it  now  stands ; and  their 
report  was  accepted.  It  was  a delicate  point;  and  it  was  necessary 
that  all  parties  should  be  indulged.  Gentlemen  will  see,  that  if  there 
had  not  been  a unanimity,  nothing  could  have  been  done  : for  the 
Convention  had  no  power  to  establish,  but  only  to  recommend  a gov- 
ernment. Any  other  system  would  have  been  impracticable.  Let  a 


45 


Convention  be  called  to-morrow — let  them  meet  twenty  times;  nay, 
twenty  thousand  times;  they  will  have  the  same  difficulties  to  encoun- 
ter ; the  same  clashing  interests  to  reconcile. 

But  dismissing  these  reflections,  let  us  consider  how  far  the  ar- 
rangement is  in  itself  entitled  to  the  approbation  of  this  body.  We 
will  examine  it  upon  its  own  merits. 

The  first  thing  objected  to,  is  that  clause  which  allows  a represen- 
tation for  three-fifths  of  the  negroes.  Much  has  been  said  of  the 
impropriety  of  representing  men,  who  have  no  will  of  their  own. 
Whether  this  be  reasoning  or  declamation,  1 will  not  presume  to  say. 
It  is  the  unfortunate  situation  of  the  southern  states,  to  have  a great 
part  of  their  population,  as  well  as  property,  in  blacks.  The  regula- 
tions complained  of  was  one  result  of  the  spirit  of  accommodation, 
which  governed  the  convention  ; and  without  this  indulgence,  no 
union  could  possibly  have  been  formed.  But,  sir,  considering  some 
peculiar  advantages  which  we  derived  from  them,  it  is  entirely  just 
that  they  should  be  gratified.  The  southern  states  possess  certain 
staples,  tobacco,  rice,  indigo,  &c.,  which  must  be  capital  objects  in 
treaties  of  commerce  with  foreign  nations  ; and  the  advantage  which 
they  necessarily  procure  in  these  treaties  will  be  felt  throughout  all 
the  states.  But  the  justice  of  this  plan  will  appear  in  another  view. 
The  best  writers  on  government  have  held  that  representation  should 
be  compounded  of  persons  and  property.  This  rule  has  been  adop- 
ted. as  far  as  it  could  be,  in  the  Constitution  of  New-York.  It  will, 
1m  '.ever,  by  no  means,  be  admitted,  that  the  slaves  are  considered 
altogether  as  property.  They  are  men,  though  degraded  to  the  con- 
dition of  slavery.  They  are  persons  known  to  the  municipal 
laws  of  the  states  which  they  inhabit  as  well  as  to  the  laws  of  na- 
ture. But  representation  and  taxation  go  together — and  one  uni- 
form rule  ought  to  apply  to  both.  Would  it  be  just  to  compute 
these  slaves  in  the  assessment  of  taxes,  and  discard  them  from  the 
estimate  in  the  apportionment  of  representatives?  Would  it  be  just 
to  impose  a singular  burthen,  without  conferring  some  adequate 
advantage  ? 

Another  circumstance  ought  to  be  considered.  The  rule  we  have 
been  speaking  of  is  a general  rule,  and  applies  to  all  the  states. 
Now,  you  have  a great  number  of  people  in  your  state,  which  are  not 
represented  at  all ; and  have  no  voice  in  your  government:  these 
will  be  included  in  the  enumeration  — not  two-fifths — nor  three- 
fifths,  but  the  whole.  This  proves  that  the  advantages  of  the  plan 
are  not  confined  to  the  southern  states,  but  extend  to  other  parts  of 
the  Union. 

Mr.  M.  Smith.  I shall  make  no  reply  to  the  arguments  offered  by 
the  hon.  gentleman  to  justify  the  rule  of  apportionment  fixed  by  this 
clause  : for  though  I am  confident  they  might  be  easily  refuted,  yet 
I am  persuaded  we  must  yield  this  point,  in  accommodation  to  the 
southern  states.  The  amendment  therefore  proposes  no  alteration  to 
the  clause  in  this  respect. 


46 


Mr.  Harrison.  Among  the  objections,  that,  which  has  been  made 
to  the  mode  of  apportionment  of  representatives,  has  been  relinquish- 
ed. I think  this  concession  does  honor  to  the  gentleman  who  had 
stated  the  objection.  He  has  candidly  acknowledged,  that  this  appor- 
tionment was  the  result  of  accommodation  ; without  which  no  union 
could  have  been  formed. 


PENNSYLVANIA  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Wilson.  Much  fault  has  been  found  with  tiie  mode  of  expres- 
sion, used  in  the  first  clause  of  the  ninth  section  of  the  first  article. 
I believe  I can  assign  a reason,  why  that  mode  of  expression  was 
used,  and  why  the  term  slave  was  not  admitted  in  this  constitution  — 
and  as  to  the  manner  of  laying  taxes,  this  is  not  the  first  time  that 
the  subject  has  come  into  the  view  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the 
legislatures  of  the  several  states.  The  gentleman,  (Mr.  Findley)  will 
recollect,  that  in  the  present  congress,  the  quota  of  the  federal  debt, 
and  general  expenses,  was  to  be  in  proportion  to  the  value  of  land, 
and  other  enumerated  property,  within  the  states.  After  trying  this 
for  a number  of  years,  it  was  found  on  till  hands,  to  be  a mode  that 
could  not  he  carried  into  execution.  Congress  were  satisfied  of  this, 
and  in  the  year  17S3  recommended,  in  conformity  with  the  powers 
they  possessed  under  the  articles  of  confederation,  that  the  quota 
should  be  according  to  the  number  of  free  people,  including  those 
hound  to  servitude,  and  excluding  Indians  not  taxed.  These  were 
the  expressions  used  in  1783,  and  the  late  of  this  recommendation 
was  similar  to  all  their  other  resolutions.  It  was  not  carried  into 
effect,  but  it  was  adopted  by  no  fewer  than  eleven,  out  of  thirteen 
states  ; and  it  cannot  but  be  matter  of  surprise,  to  hear  gentlemen, 
who  agreed  to  this  very  mode  of  expression  at  that  time,  come  for- 
ward and  state  it  as  an  objection  on  the  present  occasion.  It  was 
natural,  sir,  for  the  late  convention,  to  adopt  the  mode  after  it  had 
been  agreed  to  by  eleven  states,  and  to  use  the  expression,  which 
they  found  had  been  received  as  unexceptionable  before.  With  res- 
pect to  the  clause,  restricting  congress  from  prohibiting  the  migration 
or  importation  of  such  persons,  as  any  of  the  states  now  existing, 
shall  think  proper  to  admit,  prior  to  the  year  1808.  The  honorable 
gentleman  says,  that  this  clause  is  not  only  dark,  but  intended  to 
grant  to  congress,  for  that  time,  the  power  to  admit  the  importation 
of  slaves.  No  such  thing  was  intended  ; but  I will  tell  you  what  was 
done,  and  it  gives  me  high  pleasure,  that  so  much  was  done.  Under 
the  present  confederation,  the  states  may  admit  the  importation  of 
slaves  as  long  as  they  please  ; but  by  this  article,  after  the  year  1808 
the  congress  will  have  power  to  prohibit  such  importation,  notwith- 
standing the  disposition  of  any  state  to  the  contrary.  I consider  this 
as  laying  the  foundation  for  banishing  slavery  out  of  this  country;; I 
and  though  the  period  is  more  distant  than  I could  wish,  yet  it  will 
produce  the  same  kind,  gradual  change,  which  was  pursued  in  Penn- 
sylvania. It  is  with  much  satisfaction  I view'  this  power  in  the  gen- 


47 


eral  government,  whereby  they  may  lay  an  interdiction  on  this 
reproachful  trade;  hut  an  immediate  advantage  is  also  obtained,  for  a 
tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed  on  such  importation,  not  exceeding  ten 
dollars  tor  each  person  ; and  this,  sir,  operates  as  a partial  prohibition  ; 
it  was  all  that  could  he  obtained,  1 ant  sorry  it  was  no  more;  but 
from  this  I think  there  is  reason  to  hope,  that  yet  a few  years,  and  it 
will  be  prohibited  altogether;  and  in  the  mean  time,  the  new  states 
which  are  to  be  formed,  will  be  under  the  control  of  congress  in  this 
particular;  and  slaves  will  never  be  introduced  amongst  them.  The 
gentleman  says,  that  it  is  unfortunate  in  another  point  of  view  ; it 
means  to  prohibit  the  introduction  of  white  people  from  Europe,  as 
this  tax  may  deter  them  from  coming  amongst  us  ; a little  impartiality 
and  attention  will  discover  the  care  that  the  convention  took  in 
selecting  their  language.  The  words  are  the  migration  or  importa- 
tion of  such  persons,  &c.,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  congress  prior 
to  the  year  ISOS,  but  a tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed  on  such  impor- 
tation ; it  is  observable  here,  that  the  term  migration  is  dropped, 
when  a tax  or  duty  is  mentioned,  so  that  congress  have  power  to 
impose  the  tax  only  on  those  imported. 

I recollect,  on  a former  day,  the  honorable  gentleman  from  West- 
moreland (Mr.  Findley,)  and  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Cumber- 
land (Mr.  Whitehill,)  took  exception  against  the  first  clause  of  the 
9th  section,  art.  1,  arguing  very  unfairly,  that  because  congress  might 
impose  a tax  or  duty  of  ten  dollars  on  the  importation  of  slaves, 
within  any  of  the  United  States,  congress  might  therefore  permit 
slaves  to  be  imported  within  this  state,  contrary  to  its  laws.  I confess 
I little  thought  that  this  part  of  the  system  would  be  excepted  to. 

1 am  sorry  that  it  could  be  extended  no  further;  but  so  far  as 
it  operates,  it  presents  us  with  the  pleasing  prospect,  that  the  rights 
of  mankind  will  be  acknowledged  and  established  throughout  the 
union. 

If  there  was  no  other  lovely  feature  in  the  constitution  but  this 
one,  it  would  diffuse  a beauty  over  its  whole  countenance.  Yet  the 
lapse  of  a few  years!  and  congress  will  have  powder  to  exterminate 
slavery  from  within  our  borders. 

How  would  such  a delightful  prospect  expand  the  breast  of  a 
benevolent  and  philanthropic  European?  Would  he  cavil  at  an  ex- 
pression? catch  at  a phrase?  No,  sir,  that  is  only  reserved  for  the 
gentleman  on  the  other  side  of  your  chair  to  do. 

Mr.  McKean.  The  arguments  against  the  constitution  are,  I think, 
ehiefly  these  : 

That  migration  or  importation  of  such  persons,  as  any  of  the 
states  shall  admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited  prior  to  1808,  nor  a tax 
or  duty  imposed  on  such  importation  exceeding  ten  dollars  for  each 
person. 

Provision  is  made  that  congress  shall  have  power  to  prohibit  the 
importation  of  slaves  after  the  year  1808,  but  the  gentlemen  in  oppo- 
sition, accuse  this  system  of  a crime,  because  it  has  not  prohibited 


48 


them  at.  once.  I suspect  those  gentlemen  are  not  well  acquainted 
with  the  business  of  the  diplomatic  body,  or  they  would  know  that  an 
agreement  might  be  made,  that  did  not  perfectly  accord  with  the  will 
and  pleasure  of  any  one  person.  Instead  of  finding  fault  with  what 
has  been  gained,  I am  happy  to  see  a disposition  in  the  United  States 
to  do  so  much. 


VIRGINIA  CONVENTION. 

Gov  Randolph  said,  we  are  told  in  strong  language,  of  dangers  to 
which  we  will  he  exposed  unless  we  adopt  this  Constitution.  Among 
the  rest,  domestic  safety  is  said  to  be  in  danger.  This  government 
does  not  attend  to  our  domestic  safety.  It  authorizes  the  importation 
of  slaves  for  twenty-odd  years,  and  thus  continues  upon  us  that  nefa- 
rious trade.  Instead  of  securing  and  protecting  us,  the  continuation 
of  this  detestable  trade  adds  daily  to  our  weakness.  Though  this 
evil  is  increasing,  there  is  no  clause  in  the  Constitution  that  will  pre- 
vent the  northern  and  eastern  States  from  meddling  with  our  whole 
property  of  that  kind.  There  is  a clause  to  prohibit  the  importation 
of  slaves  after  twenty  years,  hut  there  is  no  provision  made  for  secur- 
ing to  the  southern  States  those  they  now  possess.  It  is  far  from  be- 
ing a desirable  property.  But  it  will  involve  us  in  great  difficulties 
and  infelicity  to  he  now  deprived  of  them.  There  ought  to  be  a 
clause  in  the  Constitution  to  secure  us  that  property,  which  we  have 
acquired  under  our  former  laws,  and  the  loss  of  which  would  bring 
ruin  on  a great  many  people. 

Mr  Lee.  The  honorable  gentleman  abominates  it,  because  it  does 
not  prohibit  the  importation  of  slaves,  and  because  it  does  not  secure 
the  continuance  of  the  existing  slavery!  Is  it  not  obviously  incon- 
sistent to  criminate  it  for  two  contradictory  reasons  ? I submit  it  to 
the  consideration  of  the  gentleman,  whether,  if  it  he  reprehensible  in 
the  one  case,  it  can  be  censurable  in  the  other?  Mr.  Lee  then  con- 
cluded by  earnestly  recommending  to  the  committee  to  proceed 
regularly. 

Mr.  Henry.  It  says,  that  “no  state  shall  engage  in  war,  unless 
actually  invaded.”  If  you  give  this  clause  a fair  construction,  what 
is  the  true  meaning  of  it  ? What  does  this  relate  to?  Not  domestic 
insurrections,  but  war.  If  the  country  be  invaded,  a state  may  go  to 
war;  but  cannot  suppress  insurrections.  If  there  should  happen  an 
insurrection  of  slaves,  the  country  cannot  be  said  to  be  invaded. — 
They  cannot  therefore  suppress  it,  without  the  interposition  of  con- 
gress. 

Mr.  George  Nicholas  said,  another  worthy  member  says,  there  is  no 
power  in  the  States  to  quell  an  insurrection  of  slaves.  Have  they  it 
now?  If  they  have,  does  the  Constitution  take  it  away?  If  it  does, 
it  must  be  in  one  of  the  three  clauses  which  have  been  mentioned  by 
the  worthy  member.  The  first  clause  gives  the  general  government 
power  to  call  them  out  when  necessary.  Does  this  take  it  away  from 
the  States?  No.  But  it  gives  an  additional  security:  for,  besides 


49 


the  power  in  the  State  governments  to  use  their  own  militia,  it  will 
be  the  duty  of  the  general  government  to  aid  them  with  the  strength 
of  the  Union  when  called  for.  No  part  of  the  Constitution  can  show 
that  this  power  is  taken  away. 

Mr.  George  Mason.  Mr.  Chairman,  this  is  a fatal  section,  which 
has  created  more  dangers  than  any  other.  The  first  clause  allows  the 
importation  of  slaves  for  twenty  years.  Under  the  royal  government, 
this  evil  was  looked  upon  as  a great  oppression,  and  many  attempts 
were  made  to  prevent  it;  but  the  interest  of  the  African  merchants 
prevented  its  prohibition.  No  sooner  did  the  revolution  take  place, 
than  it  was  thought  of.  It  was  one  of  the  great  causes  of  our  separa- 
tion from  Great  Britain.  Its  exclusion  has  been  a principal  object  of 
this  State,  and  most  of  the  States  in  the  Union.  The  augmentation 
of  slaves  weakens  the  States;  and  such  a trade  is  diabolical  in  itself, 
and  disgraceful  to  mankind.  Yet,  by  this- Constitution,  it  is  continued 
for  twenty  years.  As  much  as  I value  an  union  of  all  the  States,  I 
would  not  admit  the  Southern  Stales  into  the  Union,  unless  they 
agreed  to  the  discontinuance  of  this  disgraceful  trade,  because  it 
would  bring  weakness  and  not  strength  to  the  Union.  And  though 
this  infamous  traffic  be  continued,  we  have  no  security  for  the  proper- 
ty of  that  kind  which  we  have  already.  There  is  no  clause  in  this 
Constitution  to  secure  it;  for  they  may  lay  such  tax  as  will  amount 
to  manumission.  And  should  the  government  he  amended,  still  this 
detestable  kind  of  commerce  cannot  be  discontinued  till  after  the  ex- 
piratiou  of  twenty  years.  For  the  fifth  article,  which  provides  for 
amendments,  expressly  excepts  this  clause.  I have  ever  looked  upon 
this  as  a most  disgraceful  thing  to  America.  1 cannot  express  my 
detestation  of  it.  Yet  they  have  not  secured  us  the  property  of  the 
slaves  we  have  already.  So  that,  “they  have  done  what  they  ought 
not  to  have  done,  and  have  left  undone  what  they  ought  to  have 
done.” 

Mr.  Madison.  Mr.  Chairman,  I should  conceive  this  clause  to  be 
impolitic,  if  it  were  one  of  those  things  which  could  he  excluded 
without  encountering  greater  evils.  The  Southern  States  would  not 
have  entered  into  the  Union  of  America,  without  the  temporary  per- 
mission of  that  trade.  And  if  they  were  excluded  from  the  Union, 
the  consequences  might  be  dreadful  to  them  and  to  us.  We  are  not 
in  a worse  situation  than  before.  That  traffic  is  prohibited  by  out- 
laws, and  we  may  continue  the  prohibition.  The  Union  in  general  is 
not  in  a worse  situation.  Under  the  articles  of  confederation,  it  might 
he  continued  forever  : but  by  this  clause  an  end  may  be  put  to  it 
after  twenty  years.  There  is,  therefore,  an  amelioration  of  our  circum- 
stances. A tax  may  be  laid  in  the  mean  time  ; but  it  is  limited,  other- 
wise Congress  might  lay  such  a tax  as  would  amount  to  a prohibition. 
From  the  mode  of  representation  and  taxation,  Congress  cannot  lay 
such  a tax  on  slaves  as  will  amount  to  manumission.  Another  clause 
secures  us  that  property  which  we  now  possess.  At  present,  if  any 
slave  elopes  to  auv  of  those  States  where  slaves  are  free,  he  becomes 
5 


50 


emancipated  by  their  laws.  For  the  laws  of  the  States  are  uncharita- 
ble to  one  another  in  this  respect.  But  in  this  Constitution,  “no 
person  held  to  service,  or  labor,  in  one  State,  under  the  laws  thereof, 
escaping  into  another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation 
therein,  be  discharged  from  such  service  or  labor;  but  shall  be  deliv- 
ered up  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be 
due.”  This  clause  was  expressly  inserted  to  enable  owners  of  slaves 
to  reclaim  them.  This  is  a better  security  than  any  that  now  exists. 
No  power  is  given  to  the  general  government  to  interpose  with  re- 
spect to  the  property  in  slaves  now  held  by  the  States.  The  taxation 
of  this  State  being  equal  only  to  its  representation,  such  a tax  cannot 
be  laid  as  he  supposes.  They  cannot  prevent  the  importation  of  slaves 
for  twenty  years;  but  after  that  period,  they  can.  The  gentlemen 
from  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  argued  in  this  manner : “We  have 
now  liberty  to  import  this  species  of  property,  and  much  of  the  prop- 
erty now  possessed,  has  been  purchased,  or  otherwise  acquired,  in 
contemplation  of  improving  it  by  the  assistance  of  imported  slaves. 
What  would  be  the  consequence  of  hindering  us  from  it?  The  slaves 
of  Virginia  would  rise  in  value,  and  we  would  be  obliged  to  go  to 
your  markets.”  1 need  not  expatiate  on  this  subject.  Great  as  the 
evil  is,  a dismemberment  of  the  Union  would  be  worse.  If  those 
States  should  disunite  from  the  other  States,  for  not  including  them 
in  the  temporary  continuance  cf  this  traffic,  they  might  solicit  and 
obtain  aid  from  foreign  powers. 

Mr.  Tyler  warmly  enlarged  on  the  impolicy,  iniquity,  and  disgrace- 
fulness of  this  wicked  traffic.  He  thought  the  reasons  urged  by  gen- 
tlemen in  defence  of  it  were  inconclusive,  and  ill  founded.  It  was 
one  cause  of  the  complaints  against  British  tyranny,  that  this  trade 
was  permitted.  The  Revolution  had  put  a period  to  it;  but  now  it 
was  to  be  revived.  He  thought  nothing  could  justify  it.  This  tem- 
porary restriction  on  Congress  militated,  in  his  opinion,  against  the 
arguments  of  gentlemen  on  the  other  side,  that  what  was  not  given 
up,  was  retained  by  the  States;  for  that  if  this  restriction  had  not 
been  inserted,  Congress  could  have  prohibited  the  African  trade.  The 
power  of  prohibiting  it  was  not  expressly  delegated  to  them  ; yet 
they  would  have  had  it  by  implication,  if  this  restraint  had  not  been 
provided.  This  seemed  to  him  to  demonstrate  most  clearly  the  ne- 
cessity of  restraining  them  by  a bill  of  rights,  from  infringing  our  un- 
alienable rights.  It  was  immaterial  whether  the  bill  of  rights  was  by 
itself,  or  included  in  the  Constitution.  But  he  contended  for  it  one 
way  or  the  other.  It  would  be  justified  by  our  own  example,  and 
that  of  England.  His  earnest  desire  was,  that  it  should  be  handed 
down  to  posterity,  that  he  had  opposed  this  wicked  clause. 

Mr.  Madison.  As  to  the  restriction  in  the  clause  under  consideration, 
it  was  a restraint  on  the  exercise  of  a power  expressly  delegated  to 
congress,  namely,  that  of  regulating  commerce  with  foreign  nations. 

Mr.  Henry  insisted,  that  the  insertion  ef  these  restrictions  on  Con- 
gress, was  a plain  demonstration  that  Congiess  could  exercise  powers 


51 


by  implication.  The  gentleman  had  admitted  that  Congress  could 
have  interdicted  the  African  trade,  were  it  not  for  this  restriction.  If 
so,  the  power  uot  having  been  expressly  delegated,  must  he  obtained 
by  implication.  He  demanded  where,  then,  was  their  doctrine  of  re- 
served rights  ? He  wished  for  negative  clauses  to  prevent  them  from 
assuming  any  powers  but  those  expressly  given.  He  asked  why  it 
was  moited  to  secure  us  that  property  in  slaves,  which  vve  held  now? 
He  feared  its  omission  was  done  with  design.  They  might  lay  such 
heavy  taxes  on  slaves,  as  would  amount  to  emancipation;  and  then 
the  Southern  States  would  be  the  only  sufferers.  His  opinion  was 
confirmed  by  the  mode  of  levying  money.  Congress,  he  observed, 
had  power  to  lay  and  collect  taxes,  imposts,  and  excises.  Imposts 
(or  duties)  and  excises,  were  to  be  uniform.  But  this  uniformity  did 
not  extend  to  taxes.  This  might  compel  the  Southern  States  to 
liberate  their  negroes.  He  wished  this  property  therefore  to  be 
guarded.  He  considered  the  clause  which  had  been  adduced  by  the 
gentleman  as  a security  for  this  property,  as  no  security  at  all.  It 
was  no  more  than  this — that  a runaway  negro  could  be  taken  up  in 
Maryland  or  New-York.  This  could  not  prevent  Congress  from 
interfering  with  that  property  by  laying  a grievous  and  enormous  tax 
on  it,  so  as  to  compel  owners  to  emancipate  their  slaves  rather  than 
pay  the  tax.  lie  apprehended  it  would  be  productive  of  much  stock- 
jobbing, and  that  they  would  play  into  one  another’s  hands  in  such  a 
manner  as  that  this  property  would  be  lost  to  the  country. 

Mr.  George  Nicholas  wondered  that  gentlemen  who  were 
against  slavery,  would  be  opposed  to  this  clause;  as  after  that  period 
the  slave  trade  would  be  done  away.  He  asked,  if  gentlemen  did 
not  see  the  inconsistency  of  their  arguments?  They  object,  says 
he,  to  the  Constitution,  because  the  slave  trade  is  laid  open  for 
twenty-odd  years  ; and  yet  tell  you,  that  by  some  latent  operation  of 
it,  the  slaves  who  are  so  now,  will  be  manumitted.  At  the  same 
moment,  it  is  opposed  for  being  promotive  and  destructive  of  slavery. 
He  contended  that  it  was  advantageous  to  Virginia,  that  it  should  be 
in  the  power  of  Congress  to  prevent  the  importation  of  slaves  after 
twenty  years,  as  it  would  then  put  a period  to  the  evil  complained  of. 

As  the  Southern  States  would  not  confederate  without  this  clause, 
be  asked,  if  gentlemen  would  rather  dissolve  the  confederacy  than 
to  suffer  this  temporary  inconvenience,  admitting  it  to  be  such  ? 
Virginia  might  continue  the  prohibition  of  such  importation  during 
the  intermediate  period,  and  would  be  benefitted  by  it,  as  a tax  of  ten 
dollars  on  each  slave  might  be  laid,  of  which  she  would  receive  a 
share.  He  endeavored  to  obviate  the  objection  of  gentlemen,  that  the 
restriction  on  Congress  was  a proof  that  they  would  have  power  not 
given  them,  by  remarking,  that  they  would  only  have  had  a general 
superintendency  of  trade,  if  the  restriction  had  not  been  inserted. 
But  the  Southern  States  insisted  on  this  exception  to  that  general 
superinteudeney  for  twenty  years.  It  could  not  therefore  have  been 
a power  by  implication,  as  the  restriction  was  an  exception  from  a 


52 


delegated  power.  The  taxes  could  not,  as  had  been  suggested,  be 
laid  so  high  on  negroes  as  to  amount  to  emancipation  ; because 
taxation  and  representation  were  fixed  according  to  the  census  estab- 
lished in  the  Constitution.  The  exception  of  taxes,  from  the  uni- 
formity annexed  to  duties  and  excises,  could  not  have  the  operation 
contended  for  by  the  gentleman  ; because  other  clauses  had  clearly 
and  positively  fixed  the  census.  Had  taxes  been  uniform,  it  would 
have  been  universally  objected  to,  for  no  one  object  could  be  selected 
without  involving  great  inconveniences  and  oppressions.  But,  says 
Mr.  Nicholas,  is  it  from  the  general  government  we  are  to  fear  eman- 
cipation ? Gentlemen  will  recollect  what  I said  in  another  house, 
and  what  other  gentlemen  have  said  that  advocated  emancipation. 
Give  me  leave  to  say,  that  that  clause  is  a great  security  for  our  slave 
tax.  I cun  tell  the  committee,  that  the  people  of  our  country  are 
reduced  to  beggary  by  the  taxes  on  negroes.  Had  this  Constitution 
been  adopted,  it  would  not  have  been  the  case.  The  taxes  were  laid 
on  all  our  negroes.  By  this  system  two-fifths  are  exempted.  He 
then  added,  that  he  had  imagined  gentlemen  would  not  support  here 
what  they  had  opposed  in  another  [dace. 

Mr.  Henry  replied,  that  though  the  proportion  of  each  was  to  be 
fixed  by  the  census,  and  three-fifths  of  the  slaves  only  were  included 
in  the  enumeration,  yet  the  proportion  of  Virginia  being  once  fixed, 
might  be  laid  on  blacks  and  blacks  only.  For  the  mode  of  raising 
the  proportion  of  each  State  being  to  be  directed  by  Congress,  they 
might  make  slaves  the  sole  object  to  raise  ir.  Personalities  he 
wished  to  take  leave  of : they  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  question, 
which  was  solely  whether  that  paper  was  wrong  or  not. 

Mr.  Nicholas  replied,  that  negroes  must  be  considered  as  persons, 
or  property.  If  as  property,  the  proportion  of  taxes  to  be  laid  on 
them  was  fixed  in  the  Constitution.  If  be  apprehended  a poll  tax  on 
negroes,  the  Constitution  had  prevented  it.  For,  by  the  census, 
where  a white  man  paid  ten  shillings,  a negro  paid  but  six  shillings. 
For  the  exemption  of  two-fifths  of  them  reduced  it  to  that  proportion. 

The  second,  third,  arid  fourth  clauses,  were  then  read  as  follows : 

The  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  shall  not  be  suspended,  unless  when 
in  cases  of  rebellion  or  invasion  the  public  safety  may  require  it. 

■No  bill  of  attainder  or  ex  post  facto  law  shall  be  passed. 

No  capitation  or  other  direct  tax  shall  be  paid,  unless  in  proportion  to  the  census 
or  enumeration  herein  before  directed  to  be  taken. 

Mr.  George  Mason  said,  that  gentlemen  might  think  themselves 
secured  by  the  restriction  in  the  fourth  clause,  that  no  capitation  or 
other  direct  tax  should  be  laid  but  in  proportion  to  the  census  before 
directed  to  be  taken.  But  that  when  maturely  considered  it  would 
be  found  to  be  no  security  whatsoever.  It  was  nothing  but  a direct 
assertion,  or  mere  confirmation  of  the  clause  which  fixed  the  ratio  of 
taxes  and  representation.  It  only  meant  that  the  quantum  to  be 


53 


raised  of  each  State  should  be  in  proportion  to  their  numbers  in  the 
manner  therein  directed.  But  the  general  government  was  not 
precluded  from  laying  the  proportion  of  any  particular  State  on 
any  one  species  of  property  they  might  think  proper.  For  instance, 
if  five  hundred  thousand  dollars  were  to  be  raised,  they  might  lay  the 
whole  of  the  proportion  of  the  Southern  States  on  the  blacks,  or  any 
one  species  of  property : so  that  by  laying  taxes  too  heavily  on  slaves, 
they  might  totally  annihilate  that  kind  of  property.  No  real  security 
could  arise  from  the  clause  which  provides,  that  persons  held  to  labor 
in  one  State,  escaping  into  another,  shall  be  delivered  up.  This  only 
meaut,  that  runaway  slaves  should  not  be  protected  in  other  States. 
As  to  the  exclusion  of  ex  post  facto  laws,  it  could  not  be  said  to 
create  any  security  in  this  case.  For  laying  a tax  on  slaves  would 
not  be  ex  post  facto. 

Mr.  Madison  replied,  that  even  the  Southern  States,  who  were  most 
affected,  were  perfectly  satisfied  with  this  provision,  and  dreaded  no 
danger  to  the  property  they  now  hold.  It  appeared  to  him,  that  the 
general  government  would  not  intermeddle  with  that  property  for 
twenty  years,  but  to  lay  a tax  on  every  slave  imported,  not  exceeding 
ten  dollars  ; and  that  after  the  expiration  of  that  period  they  might 
prohibit  the  traffic  altogether.  The  census  in  the  constitution  was 
intended  to  introduce  equality  in  the  burdens  to  be  laid  on  the  com- 
munity. No  gentleman  objected  to  laying  duties,  imposts,  and 
excises,  uniformly.  But  uniformity  of  taxes  would  be  subversive  to 
the  principles  of  equality : for  that  it  was  not  possible  to  select  any 
article  which  would  be  easy  for  one  State,  but  what  would  be  heavy 
for  another.  That  the  proportion  of  each  State  being  ascertained,  it 
would  be  raised  by  the  general  government  in  the  most  convenient 
manner  for  the  people,  and  not  by  the  selection  of  any  one  particular 
object.  That  there  must  be  some  degree  of  confidence  put  in  agents, 
or  else  we  must  reject  a state  of  civil  society  altogether.  Another 
great  security  to  this  property,  which  he  mentioned,  was,  that  five 
States  were  greatly  interested  in  that  species  of  property,  and  there 
were  other  States  which  had  some  slaves,  and  had  made  no  attempt, 
or  taken  any  step  to  take  them  from  the  people.  There  were  a few 
slaves  in  New  York,  New  Jersey  and  Connecticut : these  States 
would,  probably,  oppose  any  attempts  to  annihilate  this  species  of 
property.  He  concluded,  by  observing,  that  he  would  be  glad  to  leave 
the  decision  of  this  to  the  committee. 

The  second  section  was  then  read  as  follows : 

###*### 

No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State,  under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping 
into  another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation  therein,  be  discharged 
from  such  service  or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up,  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom 
such  service  or  labor  may  be  due. 

Mr.  George  Mason. — Mr.  Chairman,  on  some  former  part  of  the 
investigation  of  this  subject,  gentlemen  were  pleased  to  make  some 

5* 


54 


observations  on  the  security  of  property  coming  within  this  section. 
It  was  then  said,  and  I now  say,  that  there  is  no  security,  nor  have 
gentlemen  convinced  me  of  this. 

Mr.  Henry.  Among  ten  thousand  implied  powers  which  they  may 
assume,  they  may,  if  we  be  engaged  in  war,  liberate  every  one  of 
your  slaves  if  they  please.  And  this  must  and  will  be  done  by  men, 
a majority  of  whom  have  not  a common  interest  with  you.  They 
will,  therefore,  have  no  feeling  for  your  interests.  It  has  been  re- 
peatedly said  here,  that  the  great  object  of  a national  government, 
was  national  defence.  That  power  which  is  said  to  be  intended  for 
security  and  safety,  may  be  rendered  detestable  and  oppressive.  If 
you  give  power  to  the  general  government  to  provide  for  the  general 
defence,  the  means  must  be  commensurate  to  the  end.  All  the  means 
in  the  possession  of  the  people  must  be  given  to  the  government  which 
is  entrusted  with  the  public  defence.  In  this  State  there  are  236,000 
blacks, and  there  are  many  in  several  other  States.  But  there  are  few  or 
none  in  the  Northern  States,  and  yet  if  the  Northern  States  shall  be  of 
opinion,  that  our  numbers  are  numberless,  they  may  call  forth  every 
national  resource.  May  Congress  not  say,  that  every  black  man  must 
fight?  Did  we  not  see  a little  of  this  last  war?  We  were  not  so 
hard  pushed,  as  to  make  emancipation  general.  But  acts  of  assembly 
passed,  that  every  slave  who  would  go  to  the  army  should  be  free. 
Another  thing  will  contribute  to  bring  this  event  about  — slavery  is 
detested  — we  feel  its  fatal  effects — we  deplore  it  with  all  the  pity 
of  humanity.  Let  all  these  considerations,  at  some  future  period, 
press  with  full  force  on  the  minds  of  Congress.  Let  that  urbanity, 
which  I trust  will  distinguish  America,  and  the  necessity  of  national 
defence,  let  all  these  things  operate  on  their  minds,  they  will  search 
that  paper,  and  see  if  they  have  power  of  manumission.  And  have 
they  not,  sir?  Have  they  not  power  to  provide  for  the  general 
defence  and  welfare  ? May  they  not  think  that  these  call  for  the 
abolition  of  slavery  ? May  not  they  pronounce  all  slaves  ft  ee,  and 
will  they  not  be  warranted  by  that  power?  There  is  no  ambiguous 
implication  or  logical  deduction.  The  paper  speaks  to  the  point. 
They  have  the  power  in  clear,  unequivocal  terms  ; and  will  clearly 
and  certainly  exercise  it.  As  much  as  I deplore  slavery,  1 see  that 
prudence  forbids  its  abolition.  I deny  that  the  general  government 
ought  to  set  them  free,  because  a decided  majority  of  the  States  have 
not  the  ties  of  sympathy  and  fellow-feeling  for  those  whose  interest 
would  be  affected  by  their  emancipation.  The  majority  of  Congress 
is  to  the  North,  and  the  slaves  are  to  the  South.  In  this  situation,  I 
see  a great  deal  of  the  property  of  the  people  of  Virginia  in  jeopardy, 
and  their  peace  and  tranquillity  gone  away.  I repeat  it  again,  that  it 
would  rejoice  my  very  soul,  that  every  one  of  my  fellow-beings  was 
emancipated.  As  we  ought  with  gratitude  to  admire  that  decree  of 
Heaven,  which  has  numbered  us  among  the  free,  we  ought  to  lament 
and  deplore  the  necessity  of  holding  our  fellow-men  in  bondage. 


■MB 


55 


But  is  it  practicable  by  any  human  means,  to  liberate  them,  without 
producing  the  most  dreadful  and  ruinous  consequences?  We  ought 
to  possess  them  in  the  manner  we  have  inherited  them  from  our 
aucestors,  as  their  manumission  is  incompatible  with  the  felicity  of  the 
country.  But  we  ought  to  soften,  as  much  as  possible,  the  rigor  of 
their  unhappy  fate.  I know  that  in  a variety  of  particular  instances, 
the  legislature,  listening  to  complaints,  have  admitted  their  emanci- 
pation. Let  me  not  dwell  on  this  subject.  I will  only  add,  that  this, 
as  well  as  every  other  property  of  the  people  of  Virginia,  is  in  jeop- 
ardy, aud  put  in  the  hands  of  those  who  have  no  similarity  of  situation 
with  us.  This  is  a local  matter,  and  I can  see  no  propriety  in  sub- 
jecting it  to  Congress. 

Have  we  not  a right  to  say,  hear  our  propositions  ? Why,  sir,  your 
slaves  have  a right  to  make  their  humble  requests. — Those  who  are 
in  the  meanest  occupations  of  human  life,  have  a right  to  complain. 

Gov.  Raudolph  said,  that  honorable  gentleman,  and  some  others, 
have  insisted  that  the  abolition  of  slavery  will  result  from  it,  and  at 
the  same  time  have  complained,  that  it  encourages  its  continuation. 
The  inconsistency  proves  in  some  degree,  the  futility  of  their  argu- 
ments. But  if  it  be  not  conclusive,  to  satisfy  the  committee  that 
there  is  no  danger  of  enfranchisement  taking  place,  I beg  leave  to 
refer  them  to  the  paper  itself.  I hope  that  there  is  none  here,  who, 
considering  the  subject  in  the  calm  light  of  philosophy,  will  advance 
an  objection  dishonorable  to  Virginia  ; that  at  the  moment  they  are 
securing  the  rights  of  their  citizens,  an  objection  is  started  that  there 
is  a spark  of  hope,  that  those  unfortunate  men  now  held  in  bondage, 
may,  by  the  operation  of  the  general  government,  be  made  free.  But 
if  any  gentleman  be  terrified  by  this  apprehension,  let  him  read  the 
system.  I ask,  and  I will  ask  again  and  again,  till  I be  answered  (not 
by  declamation)  where  is  the  part  that  has  a tendency  to  the  abolition 
of  slavery  ? Is  it  the  clause  which  says,  that  “ the  migration  or  im- 
portation of  such  persons  as  any  of  the  States  now  existing,  shall 
think  proper  to  admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  Congress  prior  to 
the  year  1808  ?”  This  is  an  exception  from  the  power  of  regulating 
commerce,  and  the  restriction  is  only  to  continue  till  1808.  Then 
Congress  can,  by  the  exercise  of  that  power,  prevent  future  importa- 
tions ; but  does  it  affect  the  existing  state  of  slavery?  Were  it  right 
here  to  mention  what  passed  in  convention  on  the  occasion,  I might 
tell  you  that  the  Southern  States,  even  South  Carolina  herself,  con- 
ceived this  property  to  be  secure  by  these  words.  I believe,  whatever 
we  may  think  here,  that  there  was  not  a member  of  the  Virginia 
delegation  who  had  the  smallest  suspicion  of  the  abolition  of  slavery. 
Go  to  their  meaning.  Point  out  the  clause  where  this  formidable 
power  of  emancipation  is  inserted.  But  another  clause  of  the  Con- 
stitution proves  the  absurdity  of  the  supposition.  The  words  of  the 
clause  are,  “ No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State,  under 
the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any 
law  or  regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such  service  or  labor; 


56 


but  shall  be  delivered  up  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service 
or  labor  may  be  due.”  Every  one  knows  that  slaves  are  held  to 
service  and  labor.  And  when  authority  is  given  to  owners  of  slaves 
to  vindicate  their  property,  can  it  be  supposed  they  can  be  deprived 
of  it?  If  a citizen  of  this  State,  in  consequence  of  this  clause, 
can  take  his  runaway  slave  in  Maryland,  can  it  be  seriously 
thought,  that  after  taking  him  and  bringing  him  home,  he  could  be 
made  free  ? 

I observed  that  the  honorable  gentleman’s  proposition  comes  in  a 
truly  questionable  shape,  and  is  still  more  extraordinary  and  unac- 
countable for  another  consideration  ; that  although  we  went  article  by 
article  through  the  Constitution,  and  although  we  did  not  expect  a 
general  review  of  the  subject,  (as  a most  comprehensive  view  had 
been  taken  of  it  before  it  was  regularly  debated,)  yet  we  are  carried 
back  to  the  clause  giving  that  dreadful  power,  for  the  general  welfare. 
Pardon  me  if  I remind  you  of  the  true  state  of  that  business.  I 
appeal  to  the  candor  of  the  honorable  gentleman,  and  if  he  thinks  it 
an  improper  appeal,  I ask  the  gentlemen  here,  whether  there  be  a 
general  indefinite  power  of  providing  for  the  general  welfare?  The 
power  is,  “to  lay  and  collect  taxes,  duties,  imposts,  and  excises,  to 
pay  the  debts  and  provide  for  the  common  defence  and  general  wel- 
fare.” So  that  they  can  only  raise  money  by  these  means,  in  order 
to  provide  for  the  general  welfare.  No  man  who  reads  it  can  say  it 
is  general  as  the  honorable  gentleman  represents  it.  You  must 
violate  every  ride  of  construction  and  common  sense,  if  you  sever  it 
from  the  power  of  raising  money  and  annex  it  to  any  thing  else,  in 
order  to  make  it  that  formidable  power  which  it  is  represented  to  be. 

Mr.  George  Muson.  Mr.  Chairman,  with  respect  to  commerce  and 
navigation,  he  has  given  it  as  his  opinion,  that  their  regulation,  as  it 
now  stands,  was  a sine  qua  non  of  the  Union,  and  that  without  it,  the 
States  in  convention  would  never  concur.  I differ  from  him.  It 
never  was,  nor  in  my  opinion  ever  will  be,  a sine  qua  non  of  the 
Union.  I will  give  you,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  the  history  of 
that  affair.  This  business  was  discussed  at  Philadelphia  for  four 
months,  during  which  time  the  subject  of  commerce  and  navigation 
was  often  under  consideration  ; and  I assert,  that  eight  States  out  of 
twelve,  for  more  than  three  months,  voted  for  requiring  two-thirds  of 
the  members  present  in  each  house  to  pass  commercial  and  naviga- 
tion laws.  True  it  is,  that  afterwards  it  was  carried  by  a majority,  as 
it  stands.  If  I am  right,  there  was  a great  majority  for  requir- 
ing two-thirds  of  the  States  in  this  business,  till  a compromise  took 
place  between  the  Northern  and  Southern  States  ; the  Northern  States 
agreeing  to  the  temporary  importation  of  slaves,  and  the  Southern 
States  conceding,  in  return,  that  navigation  and  commercial  laws 
should  be  on  the  footing  on  which  they  now  stand.  If  I am  mis- 
taken, let  me  be  put  right.  These  are  my  reasons  for  saying  that 
this  was  not  a sine  qua  non  of  their  concurrence.  The  Newfound- 
land fisheries  will  require  that  kind  of  security  which  we  are  now  in 


57 


want  of.  The  Eastern  States  therefore  agreed  at  length,  that  treaties 
should  require  the  consent  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  present  in 
the  senate. 

Mr  Madison  said — 

J was  struck  with  surprise  when  1 heard  him  express  himself 
alarmed  with  respect  to  the  emancipation  of  slaves.  Let  me  ask,  if 
they  should  even  attempt  it,  if  it  will  not  be  an  usurpation  of  power? 
There  is  no  power  to  warrant  it,  in  that  paper.  If  there  be,  I know 
it  not.  But  why  should  it  be  done  ? Says  the  honorable  gentleman, 
for  the  general  welfare  — it  will  infuse  strength  into  our  system. 
Can  any  member  of  this  committee  suppose,  that  it  will  increase  our 
strength  ? Can  any  one  believe,  that  the  American  councils  will 
come  into  a measure  which  will  strip  them  of  their  property,  dis- 
courage and  alienate  the  affections  of  five-thirteenths  of  the  Union? 
Why  was  nothing  of  this  sort  aimed  at  before  ? I believe  such  an 
idea  never  entered  into  an  American  breast,  nor  do  1 believe  it  ever 
will,  unless  it  will  enter  into  the  heads  of  those  gentlemen  who  sub- 
stitute unsupported  suspicions  for  reasons. 

Mr.  Henry.  He  asked  me  where  was  the  power  of  emancipating 
slaves?  I say  it  will  be  implied,  unless  implication  be  prohibited. 
He  admits  that  the  power  of  granting  passports  will  be  in  the  new 
congress  without  the  insertion  of  this  restriction  — yet  he  can  shew 
me  nothing  like  such  a power  granted  in  that  constitution.  Not- 
withstanding be  admits  their  right  to  this  power  by  implication,  he 
says  that  I am  unfair  aud  uncandid  in  my  deduction,  that  they  can 
emancipate  our  slaves,  though  the  word  emancipation  be  not  men- 
tioned in  it.  They  can  exercise  power  by  implication  in  one  instance, 
as  well  as  in  another.  Thus,  by  the  gentleman’s  own  argument,  they 
can  exercise  the  power  though  it  be  not  delegated. 

Mr.  Z.  Johnson.  They  tell  us  that  they  see  a progressive  danger  of 
bringing  about  emancipation.  The  principle  has  begun  since  the  revo- 
lution. Let  us  do  what  we  will,  it  will  come  round.  Slavery  has  been 
the  foundation  of  that  impiety  and  dissipation,  which  have  been  so 
much  disseminated  among  our  countrymen.  If  it  were  totally  abol- 
ished, it  would  do  much  good. 

NORTH  CAROLINA  CONVENTION. 

The  first  three  clauses  of  the  second  section  read. 

Mr.  Goudy.  Mr.  Chairman,  this  clause  of  taxation  will  give  an 
advantage  to  some  States  over  the  others.  It  will  be  oppressive  to 
the  Southern  States.  Taxes  are  equal  to  our  representation.  To 
augment  our  taxes  and  increase  our  burthens,  our  negroes  are  to  be 
represented.  If  a State  has  fifty  thousand  negroes,  she  is  to  send 
one  representative  for  them.  I wish  not  to  be  represented  with 
negroes,  especially  if  it  increases  my  burthens. 

Mr.  Davie.  Mr.  Chairman,  I will  endeavor  to  obviate  what  the 
gentleman  last  up  has  said.  I wonder  to  see  gentlemen  so  precipi- 
tate and  hasty  on  a subject  of  such  awful  importance.  It  ought  to 


58 


be  considered,  that  some  of  us  are  slow  of  apprehension,  not  having 
those  quick  conceptions,  and  luminous  understandings,  of  which 
other  gentlemen  may  he  possessed.  The  gentleman  “ does  not  wish 
to  be  represented  with  negroes.”  This,  sir,  is  an  unhappy  species  of 
population,  but  we  cannot  at  present  alter  their  situation.  The  East- 
ern States  had  great  jealousies  on  this  subject.  They  insisted  that 
their  cows  and  horses  were  equally  entitled  to  representation  ; that 
the  one  was  property  as  well  as  the  other.  It  became  our  duty  on 
the  other  hand,  to  acquire  as  much  weight  as  possible  in  the  legislation 
of  the  Union;  and  as  the  Northern  States  were  more  populous  in 
whites,  this  only  could  be  done  by  insisting  that  a certain  proportion  of 
our  slaves  should  make  a part  of  the  computed  population.  It  was 
attempted  to  form  a rule  of  representation  from  a compound  ratio  of  . 
wealth  and  population  ; but,  on  consideration,  it  was  found  impracti- 
cable to  determine  the  comparative  value  of  lands,  and  other  proper- 
ty, in  so  extensive  a territory,  with  any  degree  of  accuracy  ; and  pop- 
ulation alone  was  adopted  as  the  only  practicable  rule  or  criterion  of 
representation.  It  was  urged  by  the  deputies  of  the  Eastern  States, 
that  a representation  of  two-fifths  would  be  of  little  utility,  and  that 
their  entire  representation  would  be  unequal  and  burthensome.  That 
in  a time  of  war,  slaves  rendered  a country  more  vulnerable,  while  its 
defence  devolved  upon  its  free  inhabitants.  On  the  other  hand,  we  in- 
sisted, that  in  time  of  peace  they  contributed  by  their  labor  to  the 
general  wealth  as  well  as  other  members  of  the  community.  That  as 
rational  beings  they  had  a right  of  representation,  and  in  some  in- 
stances might  be  highly  useful  in  war.  On  these  principles,  the 
Eastern  States  gave  the  matter  up,  and  consented  to  the  regulation  as 
it  has  been  read.  I hope  these  reasons  will  appear  satisfactory.  It 
is  the  same  rule  or  principle  which  was  proposed  some  years  ago  by 
Congress,  and  assented  to  by  twelve  of  the  States.  It  may  wound 
the  delicacy  of  the  gentleman  from  Guilford,  [Mr.  Goudy,]  but  I hope 
he  will  endeavor  to  accommodate  his  feelings  to  the  interests  and 
circumstances  of  his  country. 

Mr.  James  Galloway  said,  that  he  did  not  object  to  the  representa- 
tion of  negroes,  so  much  as  he  did  to  the  fewness  of  the  number  of 
representatives.  He  was  surprised  bow  we  came  to  have  but  five, 
including  those  intended  to  represent  negroes.  That  in  his  humble 
opinion  North  Carolina  was  entitled  to  that  number  independent  of 
the  negroes. 

First  clause  of  the  9th  section  read. 

Mr.  J.  M’Dowall  wished  to  hear  the  reasons  of  this  restriction. 

Mr.  Spaight  answered  that  there  was  a contest  between  the  North- 
ern and  Southern  States  — that  the  Southern  States,  whose  principal 
support  depended  on  the  labor  of  slaves,  would  not  consent  to  the 
desire  of  the  Northern  States  to  exclude  the  importation  of  slaves  abso- 
lutely. That  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  insisted  on  this  clause,  as 
they  were  now  in  want  of  hands  to  cultivate  their  lands  : That  in 
the  course  of  twenty  years  they  would  be  fully  supplied  : That  the 


59 


trade  would  be  abolished  then,  aDd  that  in  the  mean  time  some  tax 
or  duty  might  be  laid  on. 

Mr.  M’Dowail  replied,  that  the  explanation  was  just  such  as  he  ex- 
pected, and  by  no  means  satisfactory  to  him,  and  that  he  looked  upon 
it  as  a very  objectionable  part  of  the  system. 

Mr.  Iredell.  Mr.  Chairman,  I rise  to  express  sentiments  similar  to 
those  of  the  gentleman  from  Craven.  For  my  part,  were  it  practi- 
cable to  put  an  end  to  the  importation  of  slaves  immediately,  it  would 
give  me  the  greatest  pleasure,  for  it  certainly  is  a trade  utterly  incon- 
sistent with  the  rights  of  humanity,  and  under  which  great  cruelties 
have  been  exercised.  When  the  entire  abolition  of  slavery  takes 
place,  it  will  be  an  event  which  must  be  pleasing  to  every  generous 
mind,  and  every  friend  of  human  nature  ; but  we  often  wish  for  things 
which  are  not  attainable.  It  was  the  w ish  of  a great  majority  of  the 
Convention  to  put  an  end  to  the  trade  immediately,  but  the  States  of 
South  Carolina  and  Georgia  would  not  agree  to  it.  Consider  then 
what  would  be  the  difference  between  our  present  situation  in  this 
respect,  if  we  do  not  agree  to  the  Constitution,  and  what  it  will  he  if 
we  do  agree  to  it.  If  we  do  not  agree  to  it,  do  we  remedy  the  evil  ? 
No,  sir,  we  do  not;  for  if  the  constitution  be  not  adopted,  it  will  be 
in  the  power  of  every  State  to  continue  it  forever.  They  may  or  may 
not  abolish  it  at  their  discretion.  But  if  we  adopt  the  constitution,  the 
trade  must  cease  after  twenty  years,  if  congress  declare  so,  whether 
particular  States  please  so  or  not:  surely,  then,  we  gain  by  it.  This 
was  the  utmost  that  could  be  obtained.  I heartily  wish  more  could 
have  been  done.  But  as  it  is,  this  government  is  nobly  distinguished 
above  others  by  that  very  provision.  Where  is  there  another  coun- 
try in  which  such  a restriction  prevails?  We,  therefore,  sir,  set  an 
example  of  humanity  by  providing  for  the  abolition  of  this  inhu- 
man traffic,  though  at  a distant  period.  I hope,  therefore,  that  this 
part  of  the  constitution  will  not  be  condemned  because  it  has  not 
stipulated  for  what  it  was  impracticable  to  obtain. 

Mr.  Spaight  further  explained  the  clause.  That  the  limitation  of 
this  trade  to  the  term  of  twenty  years,  was  a compromise  between 
the  Eastern  States  and  the  Southern  States.  South  Carolina  and 
Georgia  wished  to  extend  the  term.  The  Eastern  States  insisted  on 
the  entire  aholition  of  the  trade.  That  the  State  of  North  Carolina 
had  not  thought  proper  to  pass  any  law  prohibiting  the  importation 
of  slaves,  and  therefore  its  delegation  in  the  convention  did  not  think 
themselves  authorized  to  contend  for  an  immediate  prohibition  of  it. 

Mr.  Iredell  added  to  what  he  had  said  before,  that  the  States  of 
Georgia  and  South  Carolina  had  lost  a great  many  slaves  during  tbe 
war,  and  that  they  wished  to  supply  the  loss. 

Mr.  Galloway.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  explanation  given  to  this  clause 
does  not  satify  my  mind.  I wish  to  see  this  abominable  trade  put 
an  end  to.  But  in  case  it  be  thought  proper  to  continue  this  abom- 
inable traffic  for  twenty  years,  yet  I do  not  wish  to  see  the  taxon  the 
importation  extended  to  all  persons  whatsoever.  Our  situation  is  dif- 


60 


ferent  from  the  people  to  the  North.  We  want  citizens  ; they  do  not. 
Instead  of  laying  a tax,  we  ought  to  give  a bounty,  to  encourage  for- 
eigners to  come  among  us.  With  respect  to  the  abolition  of  slavery, 
it  requires  the  utmost  consideration.  The  property  of  the  Southern 
States  consists  principally  of  slaves.  If  they  mean  to  do  away  slavery 
altogether,  this  property  will  be  destroyed.  I apprehend  it  means  to 
bring  forward  manumission.  If  we  must  manumit  our  slaves,  what 
country  shall  vve  send  them  to  ? It  is  impossible  for  us  to  be  happy 
if,  after  manumission,  they  are  to  stay  among  us. 

Mr.  Iredell.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  worthy  gentleman,  I believe,  has 
misunderstood  this  clause,  which  runs  in  the  following  words:  “The 
migration  or  importation  of  such  persons  as  any  of  the  States  now 
existing,  shall  think  proper  to  admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  the 
Congress  prior  to  the  year  1808,  but  a tax  or  duty  maybe  imposed  on 
such  importation,  not  exceeding  ten  dollars  for  each  person.” 

Now,  sir,  observe  that  the  Eastern  States,  who  long  ago  have  abol- 
ished slavery,  did  not  approve  of  the  expression  slaves  ; they  therefore 
used  another  that  answered  the  same  purpose.  The  committee  will 
observe  the  distinction  between  the  two  words  migration  and  im- 
portation. The  first  part  of  the  clause  will  extend  to  persons  who 
come  into  the  country  as  free  people,  or  are  brought  as  slaves,  but 
the  last  part  extends  to  slaves  only.  The  word  migration  refers  to 
free  persons  ; but  the  word  importation  refers  to  slaves,  because  free 
people  cannot  be  said  to  be  imported.  The  tax,  therefore,  is  only 
to  be  laid  on  slaves  who  are  imported,  and  not  on  free  persons  who 
migrate.  I further  beg  leave  to  say,  that  the  gentleman  is  mistaken 
in  another  thing.  He  seems  to  say  that  this  extends  to  the  abolition 
of  slavery.  Is  there  anything  in  this  constitution  which  says  that 
Congress  shall  have  it  in  their  power  to  abolish  the  slavery  of  those 
slaves  who  are  now  in  the  country  ? Is  it  not  the  plain  meaning  of 
it,  that  after  twenty  years  they  may  prevent  the  future  importation  of 
slaves?  It  does  not  extend  to  those  now  in  the  country.  There  is 
another  circumstance  to  be  observed.  There  is  no  authority  vested 
in  congress  to  restrain  the  States  in  the  interval  of  twenty  years, 
from  doing  what  they  please.  If  they  wish  to  inhibit  such  impor- 
tation, they  may  do  so.  Our  next  assembly  may  put  an  entire  end 
to  the  importation  of  slaves. 

Article  fourth.  The  first  section  and  two  first  clauses  of  the  second 
section  read  without  observation. 

The  last  clause  read — 

Mr.  Iredell  begged  leave  to  explain  the  reason  of  this  clause.  In 
some  of  the  Northern  States,  they  have  emancipated  all  their  slaves. 
If  any  of  our  slaves,  said  he,  go  there  and  remain  there  a certain 
time,  they  would,  by  the  present  laws,  be  entitled  to  their  freedom, 
so  that  their  masters  could  not  get  them  again.  This  would  be  ex- 
tremely prejudicial  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  Southern  States,  and  to 
prevent  it,  this  clause  is  inserted  in  the  constitution.  Though  the 
word  slave  be  not  mentioned,  this  is  the  meaning  of  it.  The  Northern 


61 


delegates,  owing  to  their  particular  scruples  on  the  subject  of  slavery 
did  not  choose  the  word  slave  to  be  mentioned. 

The  rest  of  the  fourth  article  read  without  any  observation. 

##*##*# 

It  is  however  to  be  observed,  (said  Mr.  Iredell,)  that  the  first  and 
fourth  clauses  in  the  ninth  section  of  the  first  article,  are  protected 
from  any  alteration  till  the  year  1S08;  and  in  order  that  no  consoli- 
dation should  take  place,  it  is  provided,  that  no  State  shall,  by  any 
amendment  or  alteration,  be  ever  deprived  of  an  equal  suffrage  in  the 
Senate  without  its  own  consent.  The  two  first  prohibitions  are  with 
respect  to  the  census,  according  to  which  direct  taxes  are  imposed, 
and  with  respect  to  the  importation  of  slaves.  As  to  the  first,  it  must 
be  observed,  that  there  is  a material  difference  between  the  Northern 
and  Southern  States.  The  Northern  States  have  been  much  longer 
settled,  and  are  much  fuller  of  people  than  the  Southern,  but  have 
not  land  in  equal  proportion,  nor  scarcely  any  slaves.  The  subject 
of  this  article  was  regulated  with  great  difficulty,  and  by  a spirit  of 
concession  which  it  would  not  be  prudent  to  disturb  for  a good  many 
years.  In  twenty  years  there  will  probably  be  a great  alteration, 
and  then  the  subject  may  be  considered  with  less  difficulty  and  greater 
coolness.  In  the  mean  time,  the  compromise  was  upon  the  best 
footing  that  could  be  obtained.  A compromise  likewise  took  place 
with  regard  to  the  importation  of  slaves.  It  is  probable  that  all  the 
members  reprobated  this  inhuman  traffic,  but  those  of  South  Carolina 
and  Georgia  would  not  consent  to  an  immediate  prohibition  of  it; 
one  reason  of  which  was,  that  during  the  last  war  they  lost  a vast 
number  of  negroes,  which  loss  they  wish  to  supply.  In  the  mean 
time,  it  is  left  to  the  States  to  admit  or  prohibit  the  importation,  and 
Congress  may  impose  a limited  duty  upon  it. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA  CONVENTION. 

Hon.  Rawlins  Lowndes.  In  the  first  place,  what  cause  was  there 
for  jealousy  of  our  importing  negroes?  Why  confine  ns  to  twenty 
years,  or  rather  why  limit  us  at  all?  For  his  part  he  thought  this 
trade  could  be  justified  on  the  principles  of  religion,  humanity,  and 
justice;  for  certainly  to  translate  a set  of  human  beings  from  a bad 
country  to  a better,  was  fulfilling  every  part  of  these  principles. 
But  they  don’t  like  our  slaves,  because  they  have  none  themselves  ; 
and  therefore  want  to  exclude  us  from  this  great  advantage;  why 
should  the  Southern  States  allow  of  this,  without  the  consent  of 
nine  States? 

Judge  Pendleton  observed,  that  only  three  States,  Georgia,  South 
Carolina,  and  North  Carolina,  allowed  the  importation  of  negroes. 
Virginia  had  a clause  in  her  constitution  for  this  purpose,  and  Mary- 
land, he  believed,  even  before  the  war,  prohibited  them. 

Mr.  Lowndes  continued  — that  we  had  a law  prohibiting  the  im- 
portation of  negroes  for  three  years,  a law  he  greatly  approved  of ; 
but  there  was  no  reason  offered,  w'hy  the  Southern  States  might  not 
6 


62 


find  it  necessary  to  alter  their  conduct,  and  open  their  ports.  With- 
out negroes  this  State  would  degenerate  into  one  of  the  most  con- 
temptible in  the  Union:  and  cited  an  expression  that  fell  from  Gen. 
Pinckney  on  a former  debate,  that  whilst  there  remained  one  acre  of 
swamp  land  in  South  Carolina  he  should  raise  his  voice  against 
restricting  the  importation  of  negroes.  Even  in  granting  the  impor- 
tation for  twenty  years,  care  had  been  takeu  to  make  us  pay  for  this 
indulgence,  each  negro  being  liable,  on  importation,  to  pay  a duty 
not  exceeding  ten  dollars,  and,  in  addition  this,  were  liable  to  a 
capitation  tax.  Negroes  were  our  wealth,  our  only  natural  resource; 
yet  behold  how  our  kind  friends  in  the  North  were  determined  soon 
to  tie  up  our  hands,  and  drain  us  of  what  we  had.  The  Eastern 
States  drew  their  means  of  subsistence,  in  a great  measure,  from 
their  shipping;  and  on  that  head,  they  had  been  particularly  careful 
not  to  allow  of  any  burdens : they  were  not  to  pay  tonnage,  or  duties  ; 
no,  not  even  the  form  of  clearing  out:  all  ports  were  free  and  open 
to  them!  Why,  then,  call  this  a reciprocal  bargain,  which  took  all 
from  one  party,  to  bestow  it  on  the  other  ? 

Major  Butler  observed  that  they  were  to  pay  a five  per  cent  impost. 
This,  Mr.  Lowndes  proved,  must  fall  upon  the  consumer.  They  are 
to  be  the  carriers : and  we,  being  the  consumers,  therefore  all  expenses 
woidd  fall  upon  us. 

Hon.  E.  Rutledge.  The  gentleman  had  complained  of  the  ine- 
quality of  the  taxes  between  the  Northern  and  Southern  States  — 
that  ten  dollars  a head  was  imposed  on  the  importation  of  negroes, 
and  that  those  negroes  were  afterwards  taxed.  To  this  it  was 
answered,  that  the  ten  dollars  per  head  was  an  equivalent  to  the  five 
per  cent,  on  imported  articles  ; and  as  to  their  being  afterwards  taxed, 
the  advantage  is  on  our  side;  or,  at  least,  not  against  us. 

In  the  Northern  States,  the  labor  is  performed  by  white  people  ; 
in  the  Southern  by  black.  All  the  free  people  (and  there  are  few 
others)  in  the  Northern  States,  are  to  be  taxed  by  the  new  constitu- 
tion, whereas,  only  the  free  people,  and  two-fifths  of  the  slaves  in 
the  Southern  States  are  to  be  rated  in  the  apportioning  of  taxes. 
But  the  principal  objection  is,  that  no  duties  are  laid  on  shipping  — 
that  in  fact  the  carrying  trade  was  to  be  vested  in  a great  measure 
in  the  Americans  ; that  the  ship-building  business  was  principally 
carried  on  in  the  Northern  States.  When  this  subject  is  duly  con- 
sidered, the  Southern  States,  should  be  the  last  to  object  to  it.  Mr. 
Rutledge  then  went  into  a consideration  of  the  subject;  after  which 
the  Mouse  adjourned. 

Gen.  Charles  Cotesworth  Pinckney.  We  were  at  a loss  for  some 
time  for  a rule  to  ascertain  the  proportionate  wealth  of  the  States, 
at  last  we  thought  that  the  productive  labor  of  the  inhabitants  was 
the  best  rule  for  ascertaining  their  wealth  ; in  conformity  to  this 
rule,  joined  to  a spirit  of  concession,  w7e  determined  that  representa- 
tives should  be  apportioned  among  the  several  States,  by  adding  to 
the  whole  number  of  free  persons  three-fifths  of  the  slaves.  We 


63 


thus  obtained  a representation  for  our  property,  and  I confess  I did 
not  expect  that  vve  had  conceded  too  much  to  the  Eastern  States, 
wheu  they  allowed  us  a representation  for  a species  of  property 
which  they  have  not  among  them. 

The  honorable  gentleman  alleges,  that  the  Southern  States  are 
weak,  1 sincerely  agree  with  him — we  are  so  weak  that  by  ourselves 
we  could  not  form  an  union  strong  enough  for  the  purpose  of  effect- 
ually protecting  each  other.  Without  uniou  with  the  other  States, 
South  Carolina  must  soon  fall.  Is  there  any  one  among  us  so  much 
a Quixotte  as  to  suppose  that  this  State  could  long  maintain  her  in- 
dependence if  she  stood  alone,  or  was  only  connected  with  the 
Southern  States?  I scarcely  believe  there  is.  Let  an  invading 
power  send  a naval  force  into  the  Chesapeake  to  keep  Virginia  in 
alarm,  and  attack  South  Carolina  with  such  a naval  and  military  force 
as  Sir  Henry  Clinton  brought  here  in  1780,  and  though  they  might 
not  soon  conquer  us,  they  would  certainly  do  us  an  infinite  deal  of 
mischief ; and  if  they  considerably  increased  their  numbers,  we 
should  probably  fall.  As,  from  the  nature  of  our  climate,  and  the 
fewness  of  our  inhabitants,  we  are  undoubtedly  weak,  should  vve  not 
endeavor  to  form  a close  union  with  the  Eastern  States,  who  are 
strong  ? 

For  who  have  been  the  greatest  sufferers  in  the  Union,  by  our  ob- 
taining our  independence  ? I answer,  the  Eastern  States  ; they  have 
lost  every  thing  but  their  country,  and  their  freedom.  It  is  notorious 
that  some  ports  to  the  Eastward,  which  used  to  fit  out  one  hundred 
and  fifty  sail  of  vessels,  do  not  now  fit  out  thirty;  that  their  trade  of 
ship-building,  which  used  to  be  very  considerable,  is  now  annihilated  ; 
that  their  fisheries  are  trifling,  and  their  mariners  in  want  of  bread  ; 
surely  we  are  called  upon  by  every  tie  of  justice,  friendship,  and  hu- 
manity, to  relieve  their  distresses ; and  as  by  their  exertions  they  have 
assisted  us  in  establishing  our  freedom,  we  should  let  them,  in  some 
measure,  partake  of  our  prosperity.  The  General  then  said  lie  would 
make  a few  observations  on  the  objections  which  the  gentleman  had 
thrown  out  on  the  restrictions  that  might  be  laid  on  the  African  trade 
after  the  year  1S08.  On  this  point  your  delegates  had  to  contend 
with  the  religious  and  political  prejudices  of  the  Eastern  and  Middle 
States,  and  with  the  interested  and  inconsistent  opinion  of  Virginia, 
who  was  warmly  opposed  to  our  importing  more  slaves.  I am  of 
the  same  opinion  now  as  I was  two  years  ago,  when  I used  the  ex- 
pressions that  the  gentleman  has  quoted,  that  while  there  remained 
one  acre  of  swamp  laud  uncleared  of  South  Carolina,  I would  raise 
my  voice  against  restricting  the  importation  of  negroes.  I am  as 
thoroughly  convinced  as  that  gentleman  is,  that  the  nature  of  our 
climate,  and  the  flat,  swampy  situation  of  our  country,  obliges  us 
to  cultivate  our  land  with  negroes,  and  that  without  them  South 
Carolina  would  soon  be  a desert  waste. 

You  have  so  frequently  heard  my  sentiments  on  this  subject  that  1 
need  not  now  repeat  them.  It  was  alleged,  by  some  of  the  members 


64 


who  opposed  an  unlimited  importation,  that  slaves  increased  the 
weakness  of  any  State  who  admitted  them  ; that  they  were  a dan- 
gerous species  of  property,  which  an  invading  enemy  could  easily 
turn  against  ourselves  and  the  neighboring  States,  and  that  as  we 
were  allowed  a representation  for  them  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, our  influence  in  government  would  be  increased  in  proportion 
as  we  were  less  able  to  defend  ourselves.  “Show  some  period,” 
said  the  members  from  the  Eastern  States,  “when  it  may  be  in  our 
power  to  put  a stop,  if  we  please,  to  the  importation  of  this  weak- 
ness, and  we  will  endeavor,  for  your  convenience,  to  restrain  the 
religious  and  political  prejudices  of  our  people  on  this  subject.” 

The  Middle  States  and  Virginia  made  us  no  such  proposition  ; 
they  were  for  an  immediate  and  total  prohibition.  We  endeavored  to 
obviate  the  objections  that  were  made,  in  the  best  manner  we  could, 
and  assigned  reasons  for  our  insistingon  the  importation,  which  there 
is  no  occasion  to  repeat,  as  they  must  occur  to  every  gentleman  in 
the  House  : a committee  of  the  States  was  appointed  in  order  to 
accommodate  this  matter,  and  after  a great  deal  of  difficulty,  it  was 
settled  on  the  footing  recited  iri  the  Constitution. 

By  this  settlement  we  have  secured  an  unlimited  importation  of 
negroes  for  twenty  years;  nor  is  it  declared  that  the  importation 
shall  be  then  stopped  ; it  may  be  continued — w’e  have  a security 
that  the  general  government  can  never  emancipate  them,  for  no  such 
authority  is  granted,  and  it  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  that  the  general 
government  has  no  powers  but  what  are  expressly  granted  by  the 
constitution;  and  that  all  rights  not  expressed  were  reserved  by  the 
several  States.  We  have  obtained  a right  to  recover  our  slaves,  in 
whatever  part  of  America  they  may  take  refuge,  which  is  a right 
we  had  not  before.  In  short,  considering  all  circumstances,  we  have 
made  the  best  terms,  for  the  security  of  this  species  of  property,  it 
was  in  our  power  to  make.  We  would  have  made  better  if  we 
could,  but  on  the  whole  I do  not  think  them  bad. 

Hon.  Robert  Barnwell.  Mr.  Barnwell  continued  to  say,  I now 
come  to  the  last  point  for  consideration,  1 mean  the  clause  relative  to 
the  negroes  ; and  here  I am  particularly  pleased  with  the  Constitu- 
tion ; it  has  not  left  this  matter  of  so  much  importance  to  us  open 
to  immediate  investigation  ; no,  it  has  declared  that  the  United  States 
shall  not,  at  any  rate,  consider  this  matter  for  twenty-one  years,  and 
yet  gentlemen  are  displeased  w'ith  it. 

Congress  has  guaranteed  this  right  for  that  space  of  time,  and  at 
its  expiration  may  continue  it  as  long  as  they  please.  This  question 
then  arises,  what  will  their  interest  lead  them  to  do  P The  Eastern 
States,  as  the  honorable  gentleman  says,  will  become  the  carriers  of 
America,  it  will,  therefore,  certainly  be  their  interest  to  encourage 
exportation  to  as  great  an  extent  as  possible;  and  if  the  quantum  of 
our  products  will  be  diminished  by  the  prohibition  of  negroes,  I 
appeal  to  the  belief  of  every  man,  whether  he  thinks  those  very 
carriers  will  themselves  dam  up  the  resources  from  whence  their 


65 


profit  is  derived  ? To  think  so  is  so  contradictory  to  the  general 
conduct  of  mankind,  that  I am  of  opinion,  that  without  we  ourselves 
put  a stop  to  them,  the  traffic  for  negroes  will  continue  forever. 

FEDERALIST,  No.  42. 

BY  JAMES  MADISON. 

It  were  doubtless  to  be  wished,  that  the  power  of  prohibiting 
the  importation  of  slaves,  had  not  been  postponed  until  the  year 
ISOS,  or  rather  that  it  had  been  suffered  to  have  immediate  opera- 
tion. But  it  is  not  difficult  to  account  either  for  this  restriction  on 
the  general  government,  or  for  the  manner  in  which  the  whole  clause 
is  expressed. 

It  ought  to  be  considered  as  a great  point  gained  in  favor  of  hu- 
manity, that  a period  of  twenty  years  may  terminate  for  ever  within 
these  States,  a traffic  which  has  so  long  and  so  loudly  upbraided  the 
barbarism  of  modern  policy  ; that  within  that  period,  it  will  receive 
a considerable  discouragement  from  the  Federal  government,  and 
may  be  totally  abolished,  by  a concurrence  of  the  few  States  which 
continue  the  unnatural  traffic,  in  the  prohibitory  example  which  has 
been  given  by  so  great  a majority  of  the  Union.  Happy  would  it  be 
for  the  unfortunate  Africans,  if  an  equal  prospect  lay  before  them,  of 
being  redeemed  from  the  oppressions  of  their  European  brethern  ! 
Attempts  have  been  made  to  pervert  this  clause  into  an  objection 
against  the  Constitution,  by  representing  it  on  one  side,  as  a criminal 
toleration  of  an  illicit  practice  ; and  on  another,  as  calculated  to  pre- 
vent voluntary  and  beneficial  emigrations  from  Europe  to  America. 
I mention  these  misconstructions,  not  with  a view  to  give  them  an 
answer,  for  they  deserve  none;  but  as  specimens  of  the  manner  and 
spirit,  in  which  some  have  thought  fit  to  conduct  their  opposition  to 
the  proposed  government. 

FEDERALIST,  No.  54. 

BY  JAMES  MADISON. 

All  this  is  admitted,  it  will  perhaps  be  said  : but  does  it  follow 
from  an  admission  of  numbers  for  the  measure  of  representation,  or 
of  slaves  combined  with  free  citizens  as  a ratio  of  taxation,  that 
slaves  ought  to  be  included  in  the  numerical  rule  of  representation  ? 

Slaves  are  considered  as  property,  not  as  persons.  They  ought 
therefore,  to  be  comprehended  in  estimates  of  taxation,  which  are 
founded  on  property,  and  to  be  excluded  from  representation,  which 
is  regulated  by  a census  of  persons.  This  is  the  objection  as  I un- 
derstand it,  stated  in  its  full  force.  I shall  be  equally  candid  in  stating 
the  reasoning  which  may  be  offered  on  the  opposite  side.  We  sub- 
scribe to  the  doctrine,  might  one  of  our  Southern  brethern  observe, 
that  representation  relates  more  immediately  to  persons,  and  taxation 
more  immediately  to  property;  and  we  join  in  the  application  of 
this  distinction  to  the  case  of  our  slaves. 

But  we  must  deny  the  fact,  that  slaves  are  considered  merely  as 
6* 


66 


property,  anti  in  no  respect  whatever  as  persons.  The  true  state  of 
the  case  is,  that  they  partake  of  both  these  qualities,  being  considered 
by  our  laws,  iu  some  respects  as  persons,  and  in  other  respects  as 
property. 

In  being  compelled  to  labor,  not  for  himself,  but  for  a master  ; in 
beincr  vendible  by  one  master  to  another  master ; and  in  being  subject 
at  all  times  to  be  restrained  in  his  liberty  and  chastised  in  his  body 
by  the  capricious  will  of  another;  the  slave  may  appear  to  be  de- 
graded from  the  human  rank,  and  classed  with  those  irrational  ani- 
mals which  fall  under  the  legal  denomination  of  property.  In  being 
protected,  on  the  other  hand,  in  his  life,  and  in  his  limbs,  against  the 
violence  of  all  others,  even  the  master  of  his  labor  and  his  liberty; 
and  in  being  punishable  himself  for  all  violence  committed  against 
others;  the  slave  is  no  less  evidently  regarded  by  the  law  as  a mem- 
ber of  the  society,  not  as  a part  of  the  irrational  creation  ; as  a 
moral  person,  not  as  a mere  article  of  property.  The  Federal  con- 
stitution, therefore,  decides  with  great  propriety  on  the  case  of  our 
slaves,  when  it  views  them  in  the  mixed  character  of  persons  and 
property.  This  is  in  fact  their  true  character.  It  is  the  character  be- 
stowed on  them  by  the  laws  under  which  they  live,  and  it  will  not 
be  denied,  that  these  are  the  proper  criterion  ; because  it  is  only 
under  the  pretext,  that  the  laws  have  transformed  the  negroes  into 
subjects  of  property,  that  a place  is  disputed  them  in  the  computa- 
tion of  numbers;  and  it  is  admitted,  that  if  the  laws  were  to  restore 
the  rights  which  have  been  taken  away,  the  negroes  could  no  longer  be 
refused  an  equal  share  of  representation  with  the  other  inhabitants. 

This  question  may  be  placed  in  another  light.  It  is  agreed  on 
all  sides,  that  numbers  are  the  best  scale  of  wealth  and  taxation,  as 
they  are  the  only  proper  scale  of  representation.  Would  the  con- 
vention have  been  impartial  or  consistent,  if  they  had  rejected  the 
slaves  from  the  list  of  inhabitants,  when  the  shares  of  representation 
were  to  he  calculated  ; and  inserted  them  on  the  lists  when  the 
tariff  of  contributions  was  to  be  adjusted  ? 

Could  it  be  reasonably  expected,  that  the  Southern  States  would 
concur  in  a system,  which  considered  their  slaves  in  some  degree  as 
men,  when  burdens  were  to  be  imposed,  hut  refused  to  consider 
them  in  the  same  light,  when  advantages  were  to  be  conferred? 

Might  not  some  surprise  also  be  expressed,  that  those  who  re- 
proach the  Southern  States  with  the  barbarous  policy  of  consider- 
ing as  property  a part  of  their  human  brethern,  should  themselves 
contend,  that  the  government  to  which  all  the  States  are  to  he  parties, 
ought  to  consider  this  unfortunate  race  more  completely  in  the  un- 
natural light  of  property,  than  the  very  laws  of  which  they  complain  ? 

It  may  he  replied,  perhaps,  that  slaves  are  not  included  iu  the 
estimate  of  representatives  in  any  of  the  States  possessing  them. 
They  neither  vote  themselves,  nor  increase  the  votes  of  their  masters. 
fTpon  what  principle,  then,  ought  they  to  he  taken  into  the  Federal 
„.-;imate  of  representation  ? In  rejectins  them  altogether,  the  con- 


67 


stitution  would,  in  this  respect,  have  followed  the  very  laws  which 
have  been  appealed  to  as  the  proper  guide. 

This  objection  is  repelled  by  a single  observation.  It  is  a funda- 
mental principle  of  the  proposed  constitution,  that  as  the  aggregate 
number  of  representatives  allotted  to  the  several  States  is  to  be  de- 
termined by  a Federal  rule,  founded  on  the  aggregate  number  of 
inhabitants;  so,  the  right  of  choosing  this  allotted  number  in  each 
State,  is  to  be  exercised  by  such  part  ol  the  inhabitants,  as  the  State 
itself  may  designate.  The  qualifications  on  which  the  right  of  suf- 
frage depends,  are  not  perhaps  the  same  in  any  two  States.  In  some 
of  tiie  States  the  difference  is  very  material.  In  every  State,  a cer- 
tain proportion  of  inhabitants  are  deprived  of  this  right  by  the  con- 
stitution of  the  State,  who  will  be  included  in  the  census  by  which 
the  Federal  constitution  apportions  the  representatives.  In  this 
point  of  view,  the  Southern  States  might  retort  the  complaint,  by 
insisting,  that  the  principle  laid  down  by  the  convention  required 
that  no  regard  should  be  had  to  the  policy  of  particular  States  towards 
their  own  inhabitants;  and  consequently,  that  the  slaves,  as  inhabi- 
tants, should  have  been  admitted  into  the  census  according  to  their 
full  number,  in  like  manner  with  other  inhabitants,  who,  by  the  policy 
of  other  States,  are  not  admitted  to  all  the  rights  of  citizens.  A 
rigorous  adherence,  however,  to  this  principle  is  waived  by  those 
who  would  he  gainers  by  it.  All  that  they  ask,  is  that  equal  modera- 
tion be  shown  on  the  other  side.  Let  the  case  of  the  slaves  be  consid- 
ered, as  it  is  in  truth,  a peculiar  one.  Let  the  compromising  expedi- 
ent of  the  constitution  be  mutually  adopted,  which  regards  them  as 
inhabitants,  but  as  debased  by  servitude  below  the  equal  level  of  free 
inhabitants,  which  regards  the  slave  as  divested  of  two-fifths  of  the 
man. 


DEBATES  IN  FIRST  CONGRESS, 

Mat  13,  1789. 

Mr.  Parker  (of  Va.)  moved  to  insert  a clause  in  the  bill,  imposing  a 
duty  on  the  importation  of  slaves  of  ten  dollars  each  person.  He 
was  sorry  that  the  constitution  prevented  Congress  from  prohibiting 
the  importation  altogether;  he  thought  it  a defect  in  that  instrument 
that  it  allowed  of  such  actions,  it  was  contrary  to  the  revolution 
principles,  and  ought  not  to  be  permitted;  but  as  he  could  not  do  all 
the  good  he  desired,  he  was  willing  to  do  what  lay  in  his  power. 
He  hoped  such  a duty  as  he  moved  for  would  prevent,  in  some 
degree,  this  irrational  and  inhuman  traffic;  if  so,  he  should  feel 
happy  from  the  success  of  his  motion. 

Mr.  Smith  (of  South  Carolina.)  hoped  that  such  an  important 
and  serious  proposition  as  this  would  not  be  hastily  adopted;  it  was 
a very  late  moment  for  the  introduction  of  new  subjects.  He  ex- 
pected the  committee  had  got  through  the  business,  and  would  rise 
without  discussing  any  thing  further;  at  least,  if  gentlemen  were 
determined  on  considering  the  present  motion,  he  hoped  they  would 


68 


delay  for  a few  days,  in  order  to  give  time  for  au  examination  of  the 
subject.  It  was  certainly  a matter  big  with  the  most  serious  conse- 
quences to  the  State  he  represented;  he  did  not  think  any  one  thing 
that  had  been  discussed  was  so  important  to  them,  and  the  welfare 
of  the  Union,  as  the  question  now  brought  forward,  but  he  was  not 
prepared  to  enter  on  any  argument,  and  therefore  requested  the 
motion  might  either  be  withdrawn  or  laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  Sherman  (of  Ct.)  approved  of  the  object  of  the  motion,  but  he 
did  not  think  this  bill  was  proper  to  embrace  the  subject.  He  could 
not  reconcile  himself  to  the  insertion  of  human  beings  as  an  article 
of  duty,  among  goods,  wares  and  merchandise.  He  hoped  it  would 
be  withdrawn  for  the  present,  and  taken  up  hereafter  as  an  independ- 
ent subject. 

Mr.  Jackson,  (of  Geo.)  observing  the  quarter  from  which  this  motion 
came,  said  it  did  not  surprise  him,  though  it  might  have  that  effect 
on  others.  He  recollected  that  Virginia  was  an  old  settled  State,  and 
had  her  complement  of  slaves,  so  she  was  careless  of  recruiting  her 
numbers  by  this  means  ; the  natural  increase  of  her  imported  blacks 
were  sufficient  for  their  purpose  ; but  he  thought  gentlemen  ought 
to  let  their  neighbors  get  supplied  before  they  imposed  such  a bur- 
then upon  the  importation.  He  knew  this  business  was  viewed  in 
au  odious  light  to  the  Eastward,  because  the  people  were  capable  of 
doing  their  own  work,  and  had  no  occasion  for  slaves ; but  gentle- 
men will  have  some  feeling  for  others  ; they  will  not  try  to  throw  all 
the  weight  upon  others,  who  have  assisted  in  lightening  their  bur- 
dens; they  do  not  wish  to  charge  us  for  every  comfort  and  enjoy- 
ment of  life,  and  at  the  same  time  take  away  the  means  of  procuring 
them  ; they  do  not  wish  to  break  us  down  at  once. 

He  was  convinced,  from  the  inaptitude  of  the  motion,  and  the 
want  of  time  to  consider  it,  that  the  candor  of  the  gentleman  would 
induce  him  to  withdraw  it  for  the  present;  and  if  ever  it  came  for- 
ward again,  he  hoped  it  would  comprehend  the  white  slaves  as  well 
as  black,  who  were  imported  from  all  the  goals  of  Europe  ; wretches, 
convicted  of  the  most  flagrant  crimes,  were  brought  in  and  sold 
without  any  duty  whatever.  He  thought  that  they  ought  to  be  taxed 
equal  to  the  Africans,  and  had  no  doubt  but  the  constitutionality  and 
propriety  of  such  a measure  was  equally  apparent  as  the  one  pro- 
posed. 

Mr.  Tucker  (of  S.  C.)  thought  it  unfair  to  bring  in  such  an  import- 
ant subject  at  a time  when  debate  was  almost  precluded.  The 
committee  had  gone  through  the  impost  bill,  and  the  whole  Union 
were  impatiently  expecting  the  result  of  their  deliberations,  the 
public  must  be  disappointed  and  much  revenue  lost,  or  this  question 
cannot  undergo  that  full  discussion  which  it  deserves. 

We  have  no  right,  said  he,  to  consider  whether  the  importation 
of  slaves  is  proper  or  not;  the  Constitution  gives  us  no  power  on  that 
point,  it  is  left  to  the  States  to  judge  of  that  matter  as  they  see  fit. 
But  if  it  was  a business  the  gentleman  was  determined  to  discourage, 


69 


ne  ought  to  have  brought  his  motion  forward  sooner,  and  even  then 
not  have  introduced  it  without  previous  notice.  He  hoped  the  com- 
mittee would  reject  the  motion,  if  it  was  not  withdrawn  ; he  was  not 
speaking  so  much  for  the  State  he  represented,  as  for  Georgia,  be- 
cause the  State  of  South  Carolina  had  a prohibitory  law,  which 
could  be  renewed  when  its  limitation  expired. 

Mr.  Parker  (of  Va.,)  had  ventured  to  introduce  the  subject  after 
full  deliberation,  and  did  not  like  to  withdraw  it.  Although  the  gen- 
tleman from  Connecticut  (Mr.  Sherman)  had  said,  that  they  ought  not 
to  be  enumerated  with  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise,  he  believed 
thej'  were  looked  upon  by  the  African  traders  in  this  light;  he  knew 
it  was  degrading  the  human  species  to  annex  that  character  to  them  ; 
but  he  would  rather  do  this  than  continue  the  actual  evil  of  import- 
ing slaves  a moment  longer.  He  hoped  Congress  would  do  all  that 
lay  in  their  power  to  restore  to  human  nature  its  inherent  privileges, 
and  if  possible  wipe  off  the  stigma  which  America  labored  under. 
The  inconsistency  in  our  principles,  with  which  we  are  justly  charged, 
should  be  done  away  ; that  we  may  shew  by  our  actions  the  pure 
beneficence  of  the  doctrine  we  held  out  to  the  world  in  our  declara- 
tion of  independence. 

Mr.  Sherman  (of  Ct.,)  thought  the  principles  of  the  motion  and 
the  principles  of  the  bill  were  inconsistent;  the  principle  of  the  bill 
was  to  raise  revenue,  the  principle  of  the  motion  to  correct  a moral 
evil.  Now,  considering  it  as  an  object  of  revenue,  it  would  be  un- 
just, because  two  or  three  States  would  bear  the  whole  burthen,  while 
he  believed  they  bore  their  full  proportion  of  all  the  rest.  He  was 
against  receiving  the  motion  into  this  bill,  though  he  had  no  objection 
to  taking  it  up  by  itself,  on  the  principles  of  humanity  and  policy; 
and  therefore  would  vote  against  it  if  it  was  not  withdrawn. 

Mr.  Ames  (of  Mass.,)  joined  the  gentleman  last  up.  No  one  could 
suppose  him  favorable  to  slavery,  he  detested  it  from  his  soul,  but  he 
had  some  doubts  whether  imposing  a duty  on  the  importation,  would 
not  have  the  appearance  of  countenancing  the  practice;  it  was  cer- 
tainly a subject  of  some  delicacy,  and  no  one  appeared  to  be  pre- 
pared for  the  discussion,  he  therefore  hoped  the  motion  would  be 
withdrawn. 

Mr.  Livermore.  Was  not  against  the  principle  of  the  motion,  but 
in  the  present  case  he  conceived  it  improper.  If  negroes  were  goods, 
wares,  or  merchandise,  they  came  within  the  title  of  the  bill;  if  they 
were  not,  the  bill  would  be  inconsistent;  but  if  they  are  goods,  wares 
or  merchandise,  the  5 per  cent  ad  valorum,  will  embrace  the  import- 
ation ; and  the  duty  of  5 per  cent  is  nearly  equal  to  10  dollars  per 
head,  so  there  is  no  occasion  to  add  it  even  on  the  score  of  revenue. 

Mr.  Jackson  (of  Ga.,)  said  it  was  the  fashion  of  the  day,  to  favor 
the  liberty  of  slaves  ; he  would  not  go  into  a discussion  of  the  sub- 
ject, but  he  believed  it  was  capable  of  demonstration  that  they  were 
better  off  in  their  present  situation,  than  they  would  be  if  they  were 
manumitted;  what  are  they  to  do  if  they  are  discharged  P Work  for 


70 


a living?  Experience  has  shewn  us  they  will  not.  Examine  what 
is  become  of  those  in  Maryland,  many  of  them  have  been  set  free 
in  that  State  ; did  they  turn  themselves  to  industry  and  useful  pur-  • 
suits  ? No,  they  turn  out  common  pickpockets,  petty  larceny  villians  ; 
and  is  this  mercy,  forsooth,  to  turn  them  into  a way  in  which  they 
must  lose  their  lives, — for  where  they  are  thrown  upon  the  world, 
void  of  property  and  connections,  they  cannot  get  their  living  but  by 
pilfering.  What  is  to  be  done  for  compensation  ? Will  Virginia 
set  all  her  negroes  free  ? Will  they  give  up  the  money  they  cost 
them,  and  to  whom?  When  this  practice  comes  to  be  tried  there,  ' 
the  sound  of  liberty  will  lose  those  charms  which  make  it  grateful  to 
the  ravished  ear. 

But  our  slaves  are  not  in  a worse  situation  than  they  were  on  the  . 
coast  of  Africa ; it  is  not  uncommon  there  for  the  parents  to  sell 
their  children  in  peace;  and  in  war  the  whole  are  taken  and  made 
slaves  together.  In  these  cases  it  is  only  a change  of  one  slavery 
for  another  ; and  are  they  not  better  here,  where  they  have  a master 
bound  by  the  ties  of  interest  and  law  to  provide  for  their  support  and 
comfort  in  old  age,  or  infirmity,  in  which,  if  they  were  free,  they  ‘ 
would  sink  under  the  pressure  of  woe  for  want  of  assistance. 

He  would  say  nothing  of  the  partiality  of  such  a tax,  it  was  admit- 
ted by  the  avowed  friends  of  the  measure  ; Georgia  in  particular 
would  be  oppressed.  On  this  account  it  would  be  the  most  odious 
tax  Congress  could  impose. 

Mr.  Schureman  (ofN.  J.)  hoped  the  gentleman  would  withdraw 
his  motion,  because  the  present  was  not  the  time  or  place  for  intro- 
ducing the  business  ; he  thought  it  had  better  be  brought  forward  in 
the  House,  as  a distinct  proposition.  If  the  gentleman  persisted  in 
having  the  question  determined,  he  would  move  the  previous  question 
if  he  was  supported. 

Mr.  Madison,  (of  Va.)  I cannot  concur  with  gentlemen  who  think 
the  present  an  improper  time  or  place  to  enter  into  a discussion  of 
the  proposed  motion;  if  it  is  taken  up  in  a separate  view,  we  shall  do 
the  same  thing  at  a greater  expense  of  time.  But  the  gentlemen  say 
that  it  is  improper  to  connect  the  two  objects,  because  they  do  not 
come  within  the  title  of  the  bill.  But  this  objection  may  be  obviated  by 
accommodating  the  title  to  the  contents;  there  may  be  some  incon- 
sistency iu  combining  the  ideas  which  gentlemen  have  expressed, 
that  is,  considering  the  human  race  as  a species  of  property  ; but  the 
evil  does  not  arise  from  adopting  the  clanse  now  proposed,  it  is  from 
the  importation  to  which  it  relates.  Our  object  in  enumerating 
persons  on  paper  with  merchandise,  is  to  prevent  the  practice  of  actu- 
ally treating  them  as  such,  by  having  them,  in  future,  forming  part  of 
the  cargoes  of  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  to  be  imported  into  the 
United  States.  The  motion  is  calculated  to  avoid  the  very  evil  intimated 
by  the  gentleman.  It  has  been  said  that  this  tax  will  be  partial  and 
oppressive:  but  suppose  a fair  view  is  taken  of  this  subject,  I think 
we  may  form  a different  conclusion.  But  if  it  be  partial  or  oppres- 


71 


sive,  are  there  not  many  instances  in  which  we  have  laid  taxes  of  this 
nature  ? Yet  are  they  not  thought  to  he  justified  by  national  policy? 
If  any  article  is  warranted  on  this  account,  how  much  more  are  we 
authorized  to  proceed  on  this  occasion  ? The  dictates  of  humanity, 
the  principles  of  the  people,  the  national  safety  and  happiness,  and 
prudent  policy  requires  it  of  us  ; the  constitution  has  particularly 
called  our  attention  to  it  — and  of  all  the  articles  contained  in  the  bill 
before  us,  this  is  one  of  the  last  I should  be  willing  to  make  a con- 
cession upon  so  far  as  I was  at  liberty  to  go,  according  to  the  terms 
of  the  constitution  or  principles  of  justice  — I would  not  have  it 
understood  that  my  zeal  would  carry  me  to  disobey  the  inviolable 
commands  of  either. 

I understood  it  had  been  intimated,  that  the  motion  was  inconsis- 
tent or  unconstitutional.  I believe,  sir,  my  worthy  colleague  has  formed 
the  words  with  a particular  reference  to  the  constitution  ; any  how,  so 
far  as  the  duty  is  expressed,  it  perfectly  accords  with  that  instrument ; 
if  there  are  any  inconsistencies  in  it,  they  may  be  rectified;  I believe 
the  intention  is  well  understood,  but  I am  far  from  supposing  the 
diction  improper.  If  the  description  of  the  persons  does  not  accord 
with  the  ideas  of  the  gentleman  from  Georgia,  (Mr.  Jackson,)  and  his 
idea  is  a proper  one  for  the  committee  to  adopt,  I see  no  difficulty  in 
changing  the  phraseology. 

I conceive  the  constitution,  in  this  particular,  was  formed  in  order 
that  the  government,  whilst  it  was  restrained  from  laying  a total 
prohibition,  might  be  able  to  give  some  testimony  of  the  sense  of 
America,  with  respect  to  the  African  trade.  We  have  liberty  to  im- 
pose a tax  or  duty  upon  the  importation  of  such  persons  as  any  of 
the  States  now  existing  shall  think  proper  to  admit ; and  this  liberty 
was  granted,  I presume,  upon  two  considerations — the  first  was,  that 
until  the  time  arrived  when  they  might  abolish  the  importation  of 
slaves,  they  might  have  an  opportunity  of  evidencing  their  sentiments, 
on  the  policy  and  humanity  of  such  a trade  ; the  other  was  that  they 
might  be  taxed  in  due  proportion  with  other  articles  imported  ; for  if 
the  possessor  will  consider  them  as  property,  of  course  they  are  of 
value  and  ought  to  be  paid  for.  If  gentlemen  are  apprehensive  of 
oppression  from  the  weight  of  the  tax,  let  them  make  an  estimate  of 
its  proportion,  and  they  will  find  that  it  very  little  exceeds  five  per 
cent,  ad  valorem,  so  that  they  will  gain  very  little  by  having  them 
thrown  into  that  mass  of  articles,  whilst  by  selecting  them  in  the 
manner  proposed,  we  shall  fulfil  the  prevailing  expectation  of  our 
fellow  citizens,  and  perform  our  duty  in  executing  the  purposes  of 
the  constitution.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  by  expressing  a national  dis- 
approbation of  this  trade,  we  may  destroy  it,  and  save  ourselves  from 
reproaches,  and  our  posterity  the  imbecility  ever  attendant  on  a country 
filled  with  slaves. 

I do  not  wish  to  say  any  thing  harsh,  to  the  hearing  of  gentlemen 
who  entertain  different  sentiments  from  me,  or  different  sentiments 
from  those  I represent;  but  if  there  is  any  one  point  in  which  it  is 


72 


clearly  the  policy  of  this  nation,  so  far  as  vve  constitutionally  can,  to 
vary  the  practice  obtaining  under  some  of  the  State  governments,  it  is 
this;  hut  it  is  certain  a majority  of  the  States  are  opposed  to  this 
practice,  therefore,  upon  principle,  we  ought  to  discountenance  it  as 
far  as  is  in  our  power. 

If  I was  not  afraid  of  being  told  that  the  representatives  of  the  sev- 
eral States,  are  the  best  able  to  judge  of  what  is  proper  and  conducive 
to  their  particular  prosperity,  1 should  venture  to  say  that  it  is  as 
much  the  interest  of  Georgia  and  South  Carolina,  as  of  any  in  the 
Union.  Every  addition  they  receive  to  theirnumber  of  slaves,  tends  to 
weaken  them  and  renders  them  less  capable  of  self  defence.  Incase 
of  hostilities  with  foreign  nations,  they  will  be  the  means  of  inviting 
attack  instead  of  repelling  invasion.  It  is  a necessary  duty  of  the 
general  government  to  protect  every  part  of  the  empire  against  dan- 
ger, as  well  internal  as  external  ; every  thing  therefore  which  tends 
to  increase  this  danger,  though  it  may  he  a local  affair,  yet  if  it  involves 
national  expense  or  safety,  becomes  of  concern  to  every  part  of  the 
Union,  and  is  a proper  subject  for  the  consideration  of  those  charged 
with  the  general  administration  of  the  government.  I hope,  in  making 
these  observations,  I shall  not  be  understood  to  mean  that  a proper 
attention  ought  not  to  he  paitl  to  the  local  opinions  and  circumstances 
of  any  part  of  the  United  States,  or  that  the  particular  representatives 
are  not  best  able  to  judge  of  the  sense  of  their  immediate  constituents. 

If  we  examine  the  proposed  measure  by  the  agreement  there  is 
between  it,  and  the  existing  State  laws,  it  will  show  us  that  it  is 
patronized  by  a very  respectable  part  of  the  Union.  I am  informed 
that  South  Carolina  has  prohibited  the  importation  of  slaves  for  sev- 
eral years  yet  to  come  ; we  have  the  satisfaction  then  of  reflecting 
that  we  do  nothing  more  than  their  own  laws  do  at  this  moment. 
This  is  not  the  case  with  one  State.  I am  sorry  that  her  situation  is 
such  as  to  seem  to  require  a population  of  this  nature,  hut  it  is  im- 
possible in  the  nature  of  things,  to  consult  the  national  good  without 
doing  what  vve  do  not  wish  to  do,  to  some  particular  part.  Perhaps 
gentlemen  contend  against  the  introduction  of  the  clause,  on  too 
slight  grounds.  If  it  does  not  conform  with  the  title  of  the  bill, 
alter  the  latter;  if  it  does  not  conform  to  the  precise  terms  of  the 
constitution,  amend  it.  But  if  it  will  tend  to  delay  the  whole  bill, 
that  perhaps  will  be  the  best  reason  for  making  it  the  object  of  a 
separate  one.  If  this  is  the  sense  of  the  committee  I shall  submit. 

Mr.  Gerry  (of  Mass.)  thought  all  duties  ought  to  be  laid  as  equal  as 
possible.  He  had  endeavored  to  enforce  this  principle  yesterday,  but 
without  the  success  lie  wished  for,  he  was  bound  by  the  principles 
of  justice  therefore  to  vote  for  the  proposition  ; but  if  the  committee 
were  desirous  of  considering  the  subject  fully  by  itself,  he  had  no 
objection,  but  he  thought  when  gentlemen  laid  down  a principle,  they 
ought  to  support  it  generally. 

Mr.  Burke  (of  S.  C.)  said,  gentlemen  were  contending  for  nothing; 
that  the  value  of  a slave  averaged  about  £80,  and  the  duty  on  that 


73 


sum  at  five  per  cent,  would  be  ten  dollars,  as  congress  could  go  ri« 
farther  than  that  sum,  he  conceived  it  made  no  difference  whether 
they  were  enumerated  or  left  in  the  common  mass. 

Mr.  Madison,  (of  Ya.)  If  we  contend  for  nothing,  the  gentlemen 
who  are  opposed  to  us  do  not  contend  for  a great  deal  ; but  the 
questiou  is,  whether  the  five  per  cent  ad  valorem,  on  all  articles  im- 
ported, will  have  any  operation  at  all  upou  the  introduction  of  slaves, 
unless  we  make  a particular  enumeration  on  this  account;  the  collec- 
tor may  mistake,  for  he  would  not  presume  to  apply  the  term  goods, 
wares,  and  merchandise  to  any  person  whatsoever.  But  if  that 
general  definition  of  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  are  supposed  to 
include  African  Slaves,  why  may  we  not  particularly  enumerate 
them,  and  lay  the  duty  pointed  out  by  the  Constitution,  which,  as 
gentlemen  tell  us,  is  no  more  than  five  percent  upon  their  value  ; this 
will  not  increase  the  burden  upon  any,  but  it  will  be  that  manifesta- 
tion of  our  sense,  expected  by  our  constituents,  and  demanded  by 
justice  and  humanity. 

Mr.  Bland  (of  Va.)  had  no  doubt  of  the  propriety  or  good  policy 
of  this  measure.  He  had  made  up  his  mind  upon  it,  be  wished 
slaves  had  never  been  introduced  into  America;  but  if  it  was  impos- 
sible at  this  time  to  cure  the  evil,  he  was  very  willing  to  join  in  any 
measures  that  would  prevent  its  extending  farther.  He  had  some 
doubts  whether  the  prohibitory  laws  of  the  Stales  were  not  in  part 
repealed.  Those  who  had  endeavored  to  discountenance  this  trade, 
by  laying  a duty  on  the  importation,  were  prevented  by  the  Constitu- 
tion from  continuing  such  regulation,  which  declares,  that  no  State 
shall  lay  any  impost  or  duties  on  imports.  If  this  was  the  case,  and 
he  suspected  pretty  strongly  that  it  was,  the  necessity  of  adopting 
the  proposition  of  his  colleague  was  now  apparent. 

Mr.  Sherman  (of  Ct.)  said,  the  Constitution  does  not  consider  these 
persons  as  a species  of  property  ; it  speaks  of  them  as  persons,  and 
says,  that  a tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed  on  the  importation  of  them 
into  any  State  which  shall  permit  the  same,  but  they  have  no  power 
to  prohibit  such  importation  for  twenty  years.  But  Congress  have 
power  to  declare  upon  what  terms  persons  coming  into  the  United 
States  shall  be  entitled  to  citizenship;  the  rule  of  naturalization  must 
however  be  uniform.  He  was  convinced  there  were  others  ought  to 
he  regulated  in  this  particular,  the  importation  of  whom  was  of  an 
evil  tendency,  he  meant  convicts  particularly.  He  thought  that  some 
regulation  respecting  them  was  also  proper;  but  it  being  a different 
subject,  it  ought  to  be  taken  up  in  a different  manner. 

Mr.  Madison  (of  Va.)  was  led  to  believe,  from  the  observation  that 
had  fell  from  the  gentlemen,  that  it  would  be  best  to  make  this  the 
subject  of  a distinct  bill:  he  therefore  wished  his  colleague  would 
withdraw  his  motion,  and  move  in  the  house  for  leave  to  bring  iu  a 
bill  on  the  same  principles. 

Mr.  Parker  (of  Va.)  consented  to  withdraw  his  motion,  under  a 
conviction  that  the  house  was  fully  satisfied  of  its  propriety.  He 
7 


74 


knew  very  well  that  these  persons  were  neither  goods,  nor  wares, 
but  they  were  treated  as  articles  of  merchandise.  Although  he 
wished  to  get  rid  of  this  part  of  his  property,  yet  he  should  not  consent 
to  deprive  other  people  of  theirs  by  any  act  of  his  without  their  consent. 

The  committee  rose,  reported  progress,  and  the  house  adjourned. 

February  lltli,  1790. 

Mr.  Lawrance  (of  New  York,)  presented  an  address  from  the 
society  of  Friends,  in  the  City  of  New  York  ; in  which  they  set  forth 
their  desire  of  co-operating  with  their  Southern  brethren. 

Mr.  Hartley  (of  Penn.)  then  moved  to  refer  the  address  of  the  annual 
assembly  of  Friends,  held  at  Philadelphia,  to  a committee;  he  thought 
it  a mark  of  respect  due  so  numerous  and  respectable  a part  of  the 
community. 

Mr.  White  (of  Va.)  seconded  the  motion. 

Mr.  Smith,  (of  S.  C.)  However  respectable  the  petitioners  may  be, 
I hope  gentlemen  will  consider  that  others  equally  respectable  are 
opposed  to  the  object  which  is  aimed  at,  and  are  entitled  to  an  oppor- 
tunity of  being  heard  before  the  question  is  determined.  I flatter 
myself  gentlemen  will  not  press  the  point  of  commitment  to-day,  it 
being  contrary  to  our  usual  mode  of  procedure. 

Mr.  Fitzsimons,  (of  Penn.)  If  we  were  now  about  to  deter- 
mine the  final  question,  the  observation  of  the  gentleman  from  South 
Carolina  would  apply;  but,  sir,  the  present  question  does  not  touch 
upon  the  merits  of  the  case ; it  is  merely  to  refer  the  memorial  to  a 
committee,  to  consider  what  is  proper  to  be  done  ; gentlemen,  there- 
fore, who  do  not  mean  to  oppose  the  commitment  to-morrow,  may  as 
well  agree  to  it  to-day,  because  it  will  tend  to  save  the  time  of  the 
house. 

Mr.  Jackson  (of  Geo.)  wished  to  know  why  the  second  reading 
was  to  be  contended  for  to-day,  when  it  was  diverting  the  attention 
of  the  members  from  the  great  object  that  was  before  the  committee 
of  the  whole  ? Is  it  because  the  feelings  of  the  Friends  will  be  hurt, 
to  have  their  affair  conducted  in  the  usual  course  of  business?  Gen- 
tlemen who  advocate  the  second  reading  to-day,  should  respect  the 
feelings  of  the  members  who  represent  that  part  of  the  Union  which 
is  principally  to  he  affected  by  the  measure.  I believe,  sir,  that  the 
latter  class  consists  of  as  useful  and  as  good  citizens  as  the  petitioners, 
men  equally  friends  to  the  revolution,  and  equally  susceptible  of  the 
refined  sensations  of  humanity  and  benevolence.  Why  then  should 
such  particular  attention  be  paid  to  them,  for  bringing  forward  a husi- 
nes  of  questionable  policy?  If  Congress  are  disposed  to  interfere  in 
the  importation  of  slaves,  they  can  take  the  subject  up  without  advi- 
sers, because  the  Constitution  expressly  mentions  all  the  power  they 
can  exercise  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  Sherman  (of  Conn.)  suggested  the  idea  of  referring  it  to  a com- 
mittee, to  consist  of  a member  from  each  State,  because  several  States 
had  already  made  some  regulations  on  this  subject.  The  sooner  the 
subject  was  taken  up  he  thought  it  would  be  the  better. 


Mr.  Parker,  (of  Va.)  I hope,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  petition  of  ttiet^ 
peetable  people,  will  be  attended  to  with  all  the  readiness  the  impor- 
tance of  its  object  demands ; and  I cannot  help  expressing  the  plea- 
sure I feel  in  finding  so  considerable  a part  of  the  community  attend- 
ing to  matters  of  such  momentous  concern  to  the  future  prosperity 
and  happiness  of  the  people  of  America.  I think  it  my  duty,  as  a 
citizen  of  the  Union,  to  espouse  their  cause;  and  it  is  incumbent 
upon  every  member  of  this  house  to  sift  the  subject  well,  and  ascer- 
tain what  can  be  done  to  restrain  a practice  so  nefarious.  The 
Constitution  has  authorized  us  to  levy  a tax  upon  the  importation  of 
such  persons  as  the  States  shall  authorize  to  be  admitted.  I would 
willingly  go  to  that  extent;  and  if  any  thing  further  can  he  devised  to 
discountenance  the  trade,  consistent  with  the  terms  of  the  Constitution, 

I shall  cheerfully  give  it  my  assent  and  support. 

Mr.  Madison,  (of  Va.)  The  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  (Mr. 
Fitzsimons)  has  put  this  question  on  its  proper  ground.  If  gentlemen 
do  not  mean  to  oppose  the  commitment  to-morrow,  they  may  as  well 
acquiesce  in  it  to-day ; and  I apprehend  gentlemen  need  not  be 
alarmed  at  any  measure  it  is  likely  Congress  should  take  ; because 
they  will  recollect,  that  the  Constitution  secures  to  the  individual 
States  the  right  of  admitting,  if  they  thing  proper,  the  importation  of 
slaves  into  their  own  territory,  for  eighteen  years  yet  unexpired; 
subject,  however,  to  a tax,  if  Congress  are  disposed  to  impose  it,  of 
not  more  than  ten  dollars  on  each  person. 

The  petition,  if  I mistake  not,  speaks  of  artifices  used  by  self-in- 
terested persons  to  carry  on  this  trade ; and  the  petition  from  New 
York  states  a case,  that  may  require  the  consideration  of  Congress. 
If  anything  is  within  the  Federal  authority  to  restrain  such  violation 
of  the  rights  of  nations,  and  of  mankind,  as  is  supposed  to  he 
practised  in  some  parts  of  the  United  States,  it  will  certainly  tend  to 
the  interest  and  honor  of  the  community  to  attempt  a remedy,  and  is 
a proper  subject  for  our  discussion.  It  may  be,  that  foreigners  take 
the  advantage  of  the  liberty  afforded  them  by  the  American  trade,  to 
employ  our  shipping  in  the  slave  trade  between  Africa  and  the  West 
Indies,  when  they  are  restrained  from  employing  their  own  by  res- 
trictive laws  of  their  nation.  If  this  is  the  case,  is  there  any  person 
of  humanity  that  would  not  wish  to  prevent  them?  Another  consid- 
eration why  we  should  commit  the  petition  is,  that  we  may  give  no 
ground  of  alarm  by  a serious  opposition,  as  if  we  were  about  to  take 
measures  that  were  unconstitutional. 

Mr.  Stone  (of  Md.)  feared  that  if  Congress  took  any  measures, 
indicative  of  an  intention  to  interfere  with  the  kind  of  property 
alluded  to,  it  would  sink  it  in  value  very  considerably,  and  might  be 
injurious  to  a great  number  of  the  citizens,  particularly  in  the  South- 
ern States. 

He  thought  the  subject  was  of  general  concern,  and  that  the 
petitioners  had  no  more  right  to  interfere  with  it  than  any  other 
members  of  the  community.  It  was  an  unfortunate  circumstance, 


76 


that  it  was  the  property  of  sects  to  imagine  they  understood  the  rights 
of  human  nature  better  than  all  the  world  beside;  and  that  they 
would,  in  consequence,  be  meddling  with  concerns  in  which  they  had 
nothing  to  do. 

As  the  petition  relates'to  a subject  of  a general  nature,  it  ought  to 
lie  on  the  table,  as  information  ; he  would  never  consent  to  refer 
petitions,  unless  the  petitioners  were  exclusively  interested.  Sup- 
pose there  was  a petition  to  come  before  us  from  a society,  praying 
us  to  be  honest  in  our  transactions,  or  that  we  should  administer  the 
Constitution  according  to  its  intention  — what  would  you  do  with  a 
petition  of  this  kind  ? Ceitainly  it  would  remain  on  your  table.  He 
would,  nevertheless,  not  have  it  supposed,  that  the  people  had  not  a 
right  to  advise  and  give  their  opinion  upon  public  measures  ; but  he 
would  not  he  influenced  by  that  advice  or  opinion,  to  take  up  a sub- 
ject sooner  than  the  convenience  of  other  business  wotdd  admit. 
Unless  he  changed  his  sentiments,  he  would  oppose  the  commitment. 

Mr.  Burke  (of  S.  C.)  thought  gentlemen  were  paying  attention  to 
what  did  not  deserve  it.  The  men  in  the  gallery  had  come  here  to 
meddle  in  a business  with  which  they  have  nothing  to  do  ; they  were 
volunteering  it  in  the  cause  of  others,  who  neither  expected  nor 
desired  it.  He  had  a respect  for  the  body  of  Quakers,  but,  never- 
theless, lie  did  not  believe  they  had  more  virtue,  or  religion,  than 
other  people,  nor  perhaps  so  much,  if  they  were  examined  to  the 
bottom,  notwithstanding  their  outward  pretences.  If  their  petition  is 
to  be  noticed,  Congress  ought  to  wait  till  counter  applications  were 
made,  and  then  they  might  have  the  subject  more  fairly  before  them. 
The  rights  of  the  Southern  States  ought  not  to  be  threatened,  and 
their  property  endangered,  to  please,  people  who  were  to  be  unaffected 
by  the  consequences. 

Mr.  Hartley  (of  Penn.)  thought  the  memorialists  did  not  deserve  to 
be  aspersed  for  their  conduct,  if  influenced  by  motives  of  benignity, 
they  solicited  the  Legislature  of  the  Union  to  repel,  as  far  as  in  their 
power,  the  increase  of  a licentious  traffic.  Nor  do  they  merit  censure, 
because  their  behavior  lias  the  appearance  of  more  morality  than 
other  people’s.  But  it  is  not  for  Congress  to  refuse  to  hear  the 
applications  of  their  fellow-citizens,  while  those  applications  contain 
nothing  unconstitutional  or  offensive.  What  is  the  object  of  the 
address  before  us  ? It  is  intended  to  bring  before  this  House  a sub- 
ject of  great  importance  to  the  cause  of  humanity  ; there  are  certain 
facts  to  be  enquired  into,  and  the  memorialists  are  ready  to  give  all 
the  information  in  their  power;  they  are  waiting,  at  a great  distance 
from  their  homes,  and  wish  to  return  ; if,  then,  it  will  be  proper  to 
commit  the  petition  to-morrow,  it  will  be  equally  proper  to-day,  for 
it  is  conformable  to  our  practice,  beside,  it  will  tend  to  their  con- 
veniency. 

Mr.  Lawrance,  (of  N.  Y.)  The  gentleman  from  South  Carolina 
says,  the  petitioners  are  of  a society  not  known  in  the  laws  or  Con- 
stitution. Sir,  in  all  our  acts,  as  well  as  in  the  Constitution,  we  have 


77 


noticed  this  Society;  or  why  is  it  that  we  admit  them  to  affirm,  in 
cases  where  others  are  called  upon  to  swear?  If  we  pay  this  atten- 
tion to  them,  in  one  instance,  what  good  reason  is  there  for  con- 
temning them  in  another?  I think  the  gentleman  from  Maryland 
(Mr.  Stone,)  carries  his  apprehensions  too  far,  when  he  fears  that 
negro-property  will  fall  in  value,  by  the  suppression  of  the  slave-trade  ; 
not  that  I suppose  it  immediately  in  the  power  of  Congress  to  abolish 
a traffic  which  is  a disgrace  to  human  nature;  but  it  appears  to  me, 
that,  if  the  importation  was  crushed,  the  value  of  a slave  would  be 
increased  instead  of  diminished;  however,  considerations  of  this  kind 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  present  question  ; gentlemen  may  acqui- 
esce in  the  commitment  of  the  memorial,  without  pledging  them- 
selves to  support  its  object. 

Mr.  Jackson,  (of  Ga.)  I differ  much  in  opinion  with  the  gentleman 
last  up.  I apprehend  if,  through  the  interference  of  the  general 
government,  the  slave-trade  was  abolished,  it  would  evince  to  the 
people  a disposition  toward  a total  emancipation,  and  they  would 
hold  their  property  in  jeopardy.  Any  extraordinary  attention  of 
Congress  to  this  petition  may  have,  in  some  degree, . a similar 
effect.  I would  beg  to  ask  those,  then,  who  are  so  desirous  of  free- 
ing the  negroes,  if  they  have  funds  sufficient  to  pay  for  them  ? If 
they  have,  they  may  come  forward  on  that  business  with  some  pro- 
priety ; but,  if  they  have  not,  they  should  keep  themselves  quiet,  and 
not  interfere  with  a business  in  which  they  are  not  interested.  They 
may  as  well  come  forward,  and  solicit  Congress  to  interdict  the 
West-India  trade,  because  it  is  injurious  to  the  morals  of  mankind  ; 
from  thence  we  import  rum,  which  has  a debasing  influence  upon 
the  consumer.  But,  sir,  is  the  whole  morality  of  the  United  States 
confined  to  the  Quakers?  Are  they  the  only  people  whose  feelings 
are  to  be  consulted  on  this  occasion  ? Is  it  to  them  we  owe  our 
present  happiness  ? Was  it  they  who  formed  the  Constitution  ? 
Did  they,  by  their  arms,  or  contributions,  establish  our  independence  ? 
I believe  they  were  generally  opposed  to  that  measure.  Why,  then, 
on  their  application,  shall  we  injure  men,  who,  at  the  risk  of  their 
lives  and  fortunes,  secured  to  the  community  their  liberty  and  prop- 
erty ? If  Congress  pay  any  uncommon  degree  of  attention  to  their 
petition,  it  will  furnish  just  ground  of  alarm  to  the  Southern  States. 
But,  why  do  these  men  set  themselves  up,  in  such  a particular  man- 
ner, against  slavery  ? Do  they  understand  the  rights  of  mankind,  and 
the  disposition  of  Providence  better  than  others  ? If  they  were  to 
consult  that  Book  which  claims  our  regard,  they  will  find  that  slavery 
is  not  only  allowed,  but  commended.  Their  Saviour,  who  possessed 
more  benevolence  and  commiseration  than  they  pretend  to,  has 
allowed  of  it.  And  if  they  fully  examine  the  subject,  they  will  find 
that  slavery  has  been  no  novel  doctrine  since  the  days  of  Cain.  But 
be  these  things  as  they  may,  I hope  the  House  will  order  the  petition 
to  lie  on  the  table,  in  order  to  prevent  alarming  our  Southern  brethren. 

Mr.  Sedgwick,  (of  Mass.)  If  it  was  a serious  question,  whether  the 


78 


Memorial  should  be  committed  or  not,  I would  not  urge  it  at  this 
time  ; but  that  cannot  be  a question  for  a moment,  if  we  consider  our 
relative  situation  with  the  people.  A number  of  men, — who  are  cer- 
tainly very  respectable,  and  of  whom,  as  a society,  it  may  be  said 
with  truth,  that  they  conform  their  moral  conduct  to  their  religious 
tenets,  as  much  as  any  people  in  the  whole  community, — come  for- 
ward and  tell  you,  that  you  may  effect  two  objects  by  the  exercise  of 
a Constitutional  authority  which  will  give  great  satisfaction  ; on  the 
one  hand  you  may  acquire  revenue,  and  on  the  other,  restrain  a 
practice  productive  of  great  evil.  Now,  setting  aside  the  religious 
motives  which  influenced  their  application,  have  they  not  a right,  as 
citizens,  to  give  their  opinion  of  public  measures?  For  my  part  I 
do  not  apprehend  that  any  State,  or  any  considerable  number  of  indi- 
viduals in  any  State,  will  be  seriously  alarmed  at  the  commitment 
of  the  petition,  from  a fear  that  Congress  intend  to  exercise  an  uncon- 
stitutional authority,  in  order  to  violate  their  rights;  I believe  there  is 
not  a wish  of  tiie  kind  entertained  by  any  member  of  this  body.  How 
can  gentlemen  hesitate  then  to  pay  that  respect  to  a memorial  which  it 
is  entitled  to,  according  to  the  ordinary  mode  of  procedure  in  business? 
Why  shall  we  defer  doing  that  till  to-morrow,  which  we  can  do 
to-day  ? for  the  result,  1 apprehend,  will  be  the  same  in  either  case. 

Mr.  Smith,  (of  S.  C.)  The  question,  I apprehend,  is,  whether  we 
will  take  the  petition  up  for  a second  reading,  and  not  whether  it 
shall  be  committed  ? Now,  I oppose  this,  because  it  is  contrary  to 
our  usual  practice,  and  does  not  allow  gentlemen  time  to  consider  of 
the  merits  of  the  prayer;  perhaps  some  gentlemen  may  think  it  im- 
proper to  commit  it  to  so  large  a committee  as  has  been  mentioned  ; 
a variety  of  causes  may  be  supposed  to  show  that  such  a hasty  decis- 
ion is  improper;  perhaps  the  prayer  of  it  is  improper.  If  1 under- 
stood it  right,  on  its  first  reading,  though,  to  be  sure,  I did  not  com- 
prehend perfectly  all  that  the  petition  contained,  it  prays  that  we 
should  take  measures  for  the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade  ; this  is 
desiring  an  unconstitutional  act,  because  the  constitution  Secures  that 
trade  to  the  States,  independent  of  congressional  restrictions,  for  the 
term  of  twenty-one  years.  If,  therefore,  it  prays  for  a violation  of 
constitutional  rights,  it  ought  to  be  rejected,  as  an  attempt  upon  the 
virtue  and  patriotism  of  the  house. 

Mr.  Boudinot,  (of  N.  J.)  It  has  been  said  that  the  Quakers  have  no 
right  to  interfere  in  this  business;  I am  surprised  to  hear  this  doc- 
trine advanced,  after  it  has  been  so  lately  contended,  and  settled,  that 
the  people  have  a right  to  assemble  and  petition  for  redress  of  griev- 
ances ; it  is  not  because  the  petition  comes  from  the  society  of  Qua- 
kers that  I am  in  favor  of  the  commitment,  but  because  it  comes 
from  citizens  of  the  United  States,  who  are  as  equally  concerned  in 
the  welfare  and  happiness  of  their  country  as  others.  There  cer- 
tainly is  no  foundation  for  the  apprehensions  which  seem  to  prevail 
in  gentlemen’s  minds.  If  the  petitioners  were  so  uninformed  as  to 
suppose  that  congress  could  be  guilty  of  a violation  of  the  constitu- 


79 


tion,  yet,  I trust  we  know  our  duty  better  than  to  be  led  astray  by  an 
application  from  any  man,  or  set  of  men  whatever.  1 do  not  con- 
sider the  merits  of  the  main  question  to  be  before  us;  it  will  be  time 
enough  to  give  our  opinions  upon  that,  when  the  committee  have 
reported.  If  it  is  in  our  power,  by  recommendation,  or  any  other 
way,  to  put  a stop  to  the  slave-trade  in  America,  1 do  not  doubt  of 
its  policy;  but  how  far  the  constitution  will  authorize  us  to  attempt 
to  depress  it,  will  be  a question  well  worthy  of  our  consideration. 

Mr.  Sherman  (of  Conn.)  observed,  that  the  petitioners  from  New 
York,  stated  that  they  had  applied  to  the  legislature  of  that  State,  to 
prohibit  certain  practices  which  they  conceived  to  be  improper,  and 
which  tended  to  injure  the  well-being  of  the  community ; that  the 
legislature  had  considered  the  application,  but  had  applied  noremedjq 
because  they  supposed  that  power  was  exclusively  vested  in  the 
general  government,  under  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  ; it 
would,  therefore,  be  proper  to  commit  that  petition,  in  order  to  as- 
certain what  were  the  powers  of  the  general  government,  in  the  case 
doubted  by  the  legislature  of  New  York. 

Mr.  Gerry  (of  Mass.)  thought  gentlemen  were  out  of  order  in  entering 
upon  the  merits  of  the  main  question  at  this  time,  when  they  were 
considering  the  expediency  of  committing  the  petition  ; he  should, 
therefore,  not  follow  them  further  in  that  track  than  barely  to  observe, 
that  it  was  the  right  of  the  citizens  to  apply  for  redress,  in  every  case 
they  conceived  themselves  aggrieved  in  ; and  it  was  the  duty  of 
congress  to  afford  redress  as  far  as  in  their  power.  That  their 
Southern  brethren  had  been  betrayed  into  the  slave-trade  by  the 
first  settlers,  was  to  be  lamented  ; they  were  not  to  be  reflected  on 
for  not  viewing  this  subject  in  a different  light,  the  prejudice  of  edu- 
cation is  eradicated  with  difficulty  ; but  he  thought  nothing  would 
excuse  the  general  government  for  not  exerting  itself  to  prevent,  as 
far  as  they  constitutionally  could,  the  evils  resulting  from  such  enor- 
mities as  were  alluded  to  by  the  petitioners  ; and  the  same  consid- 
erations induced  him  highly  to  commend  the  part  the  society  of 
Friends  had  taken;  it  was  the  cause  of  humanity  they  had  interested 
themselves  in,  and  he  wished,  with  them,  to  see  measures  pursued 
bv  every  nation,  to  wipe  off  the  indelible  stain  which  the  slave-trade 
had  brought  upon  all  who  were  concerned  in  it. 

Mr.  Madison  (of  Ya.)  thought  the  question  before  the  committee 
was  no  otherwise  important  than  as  gentlemen  made  it  so  by  their 
serious  opposition.  Did  they  permit  the  commitment  of  the  Memo- 
rial, as  a matter  of  course,  no  notice  would  be  taken  of  it  out  of 
doors  ; it  could  never  be  blown  up  into  a decision  of  the  question 
respecting  the  discouragement  of  the  African  slave-trade,  nor  alarm 
the  owners  with  an  apprehension  that  the  general  government  were 
about  to  abolish  slavery  in  all  the  States  ; such  things  are  not  con- 
templated by  any  gentleman  ; but,  to  appearance,  they  decide  the 
question  more  against  themselves  than  would  be  the  case  if  it  was 
determined  on  its  real  merits,  because  gentlemen  may  be  disposed 


80 


to  vote  for  the  commitment  of  a petition,  without  any  intention  of 
supporting  the  prayer  of  it. 

Mr.  White  (of  Va.)  would  not  have  seconded  the  motion,  if  he 
had  thought  it  would  have  brought  on  a lengthy  debate.  He  con- 
ceived that  a business  of  this  kind  ought  to  be  decided  without  much 
discussion  ; it  had  constantly  been  the  practice  of  the  house,  and  he 
did  not  suppose  there  was  any  reason  for  a deviation. 

Mr.  Page  (of  Va.)  said,  if  the  memorial  had  been  presented  by 
any  individual,  instead  of  the  respectable  body  it  was,  he  should  have 
voted  in  favor  of  a commitment,  because  it  was  the  duty  of  the  legis- 
lature to  attend  to  snbjects  brought  before  them  by  their  constituents; 
if,  upon  inquiry,  it  was  discovered  to  be  improper  to  comply  with 
the  prayer  of  the  petitioners,  he  would  say  so.  and  they  would  be 
satisfied. 

Mr.  Stone  (of  Md.)  thought  the  business  ought  to  be  left  to  take 
its  usual  course ; by  the  rules  of  the  house,  it  was  expressly  declared, 
that  petitions,  memorials,  and  other  papers,  addressed  to  the  house, 
should  not  be  debated  or  decided  on  the  day  they  were  first  read. 

Mr.  Baldwin  (of  Ga.)  felt  at  a loss  to  account  why  precipitation 
was  used  on  this  occasion,  contrary  to  the  customary  usage  of  the 
house;  he  had  not  heard  a single  reason  advanced  in  favor  of  it. 
To  be  sure  it  was  said  the  petitioners  are  a respectable  body  of  men 
— he  did  uot  deny  it  — but,  certainly,  gentlemen  did  not  suppose 
they  were  paying  respect  to  them,  or  to  the  house,  when  they  urged 
such  a hasty  procedure;  anyhow  it  was  contrary  to  his  idea  of  respect, 
and  the  idea  the  house  had  always  expressed,  when  they  had  im- 
portant subjects  under  consideration  ; and,  therefore,  he  should  be 
agaiust  the  motion.  He  was  afraid  that  there  was  really  a little  vol- 
unteering in  this  business,  as  it  had  been  termed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Georgia. 

Mr.  Huntington  (of  Conn.)  considered  the  petitioners  as  much 
disinterested  as  any  person  in  the  United  States;  he  was  persuaded 
they  had  an  aversion  to  slavery  ; yet  they  were  not  singular  in  this, 
others  had  the  same;  and  lie  hoped  when  congress  took  up  the  sub- 
ject, they  would  go  as  far  as  possible  to  prohibit  the  evil  complained 
of.  But  he  thought  that  would  better  be  done  by  considering  it  in 
the  light  of  revenue.  When  the  committee  of  the  whole,  on  the 
finance  business,  came  to  the  ways  and  means,  it  might  properly  be 
taken  into  consideration,  without  giving  any  ground  for  alarm. 

Mr.  Tucker,  (of  S.  C.)  I have  no  doubt  on  my  mind  respecting 
what  ought  to  be  done  on  this  occasion  ; so  far  from  committing  the 
memorial,  we  ought  to  dismiss  it  without  further  notice.  What  is 
the  purport  of  the  memorial  ? It  is  plainly  this  ; to  reprobate  a par- 
ticular kind  of  commerce,  in  a moral  view,  and  to  request  the  inter- 
position of  congress  to  effect  its  abrogation.  But  congress  have  no 
authority,  under  the  constitution,  to  do  more  than  lay  a duty  of  ten 
dollars  upon  each  person  imported  ; and  this  is  a political  considera- 
tion, not  arising  from  either  religion  or  morality,  and  is  the  only 


81 


principle  upon  which  we  can  proceed  to  take  it  up.  But  what 
effect  do  these  men  suppose  will  arise  from  their  exertions  ? Will 
a duty  often  dollars  diminish  the  importation  ? Will  the  treatment 
be  better  than  usual  ? I apprehend  it  will  not,  nay,  it  may  be  worse. 
Because  an  interference  with  the  subject  may  excite  a great  degree 
of  restlessness  in  the  minds  of  those  it  is  intended  to  serve,  and  that 
may  be  a cause  for  the  masters  to  use  more  rigor  towards  them,  than 
they  would  otherwise  exert;  so  that  these  men  seem  to  overshoot 
their  object.  But  if  they  will  endeavor  to  procure  the  abolition  of  the 
slave-trade,  let  them  prefer  their  petitions  to  the  State  legislatures, 
who  alone  have  the  power  of  forbidding  the  importation  ; I believe 
their  applications  there  would  be  improper;  but  if  they  are  anywhere 
proper,  it  is  there.  I look  upon  the  address  then  to  be  ill-judged, 
however  good  the  intention  of  the  framers. 

Mr.  Smith  (of  S.  C.)  claimed  it  as  a right,  that  the  petition  should 
lay  over  till  to-morrow. 

Mr.  Boudinot  (of  N.  J.)  said  it  was  not  unusual  to  commit  peti- 
tions on  the  day  they  were  presented  ; and  the  rules  of  the  house 
admitted  the  practice,  by  the  qualification  which  followed  the  posi- 
tive order,  that  petitions  should  not  be  decided  on  the  day  they  were 
first  read,  “unless  where  the  house  shall  direct  otherwise.” 

Mr.  Smith  (of  S.  C.)  declared  his  intention  of  calling  the  yeas  and 
nays,  if  gentlemen  persisted  in  pressing  the  question. 

Mr.  Clymer  (of  Penn.)  hoped  the  motion  would  be  withdrawn 
for  the  present,  and  the  business  taken  up  in  course  to-morrow;  be- 
cause, though  he  respected  the  memorialists,  he  also  respected  order 
and  the  situation  of  the  members. 

Mr.  Fitzsitnons  (of  Penn.)  did  not  recollect  whether  he  moved 
or  seconded  the  motion,  but  if  he  had,  he  should  not  withdraw  it  on 
account  of  the  threat  of  calling  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Mr.  Baldwin  (of  Ga.)  hoped  the  business  would  be  conducted 
with  temper  and  moderation,  and  that  gentlemen  would  concede  and 
pass  the  subject  over  for  a day  at  least. 

Mr.  Smith  (of  S.  C.)  had  no  idea  of  holding  out  a threat  to  any 
geutleman.  If  the  declaration  of  an  intention  to  call  the  yeas  and 
nays  was  viewed  by  gentlemen  in  that  light,  he  would  withdraw  that 
call. 

Mr.  White  (of  Va.)  hereupon  withdrew  his  motion.  And  the  ad- 
dress was  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table. 

February  12th,  1790. 

The  following  memorial  was  presented  and  read  : 

“ To  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States:  The  Memorial  of  the  Pennsylvania  Society  for  promoting 
the  abolition  of  slavery,  the  relief  of  free  negroes  unlawfully  held  in 
bondage,  and  the  improvement  of  the  condition  of  the  African  race, 
respectfully  showeth : That  from  a regard  for  the  happiness  of 
mankind,  an  association  was  formed  several  years  since  in  this  State, 
by  a number  of  her  citizens,  of  various  religious  denominations,  for 

e 


82 


promoting  the  abolition  of  slavery,  and  for  the  relief  of  those  unlaw- 
fully held  in  bondage.  A just  and  acute  conception  of  the  true  prin- 
ciples of  liberty,  as  it  spread  through  the  land,  produced  accessions 
to  their  numbers,  many  friends  to  their  cause,  and  a legislative  co- 
operation with  their  views,  which,  by  the  blessing  of  Divine  Provi- 
dence, have  been  successfully  directed  to  the  relieving  from  bondage 
a large  number  of  their  fellow  creatures  of  the  African  race.  They 
have  also  the  satisfaction  to  observe,  that,  in  consequence  of  that 
spirit  of  philanthropy  and  genuine  liberty  which  is  generally  diffus- 
ing its  beneficial  influence,  similar  institutions  are  forming  at  home 
and  abroad.  That  mankind  are  all  formed  by  the  same  Almighty 
Being,  alike  objects  of  bis  care,  and  equally  designed  for  the  enjoy- 
ment of  happiness,  the  Christian  religion  teaches  us  to  believe,  and 
the  political  creed  of  Americans  fully  coincides  with  the  position. 
Your  memorialists,  particularly  engaged  in  attending  to  the  dis- 
tresses arising  from  slavery,  believe  it  their  indispensable  duty  to 
present  this  subject  to  your  notice.  They  have  observed  with  real 
satisfaction,  that  many  important  and  salutary  powers  are  vested  in 
you  for  ‘ promoting  the  welfare  and  securing  the  blessings  of  liberty 
to  the  people  of  the  United  States;’  and  as  they  conceive,  that  these 
blessings  ought  rightfully  to  be  administered,  without  distinction  of 
color,  to  all  descriptions  of  people,  so  they  indulge  themselves  in  the 
pleasing  expectation,  that  nothing  which  can  be  done  for  the  relief 
of  the  unhappy  objects  of  their  care,  will  be  either  omitted  or  de- 
layed. From  a persuasion  that  equal  liberty  was  originally  the  por- 
tion, and  is  still  the  birth-right  of  all  men,  and  influenced  by  the 
strong  ties  of  humanity  and  the  principles  or  their  institution,  your 
memorialists  conceived  themselves  bound  to  use  all  justifiable  endea- 
vors to  loosen  the  bands  of  slavery,  and  promote  a general  enjoy- 
ment of  the  blessings  of  freedom.  Under  these  impressions,  they 
earnestly  entreat  your  serious  attention  to  the  subject  of  slavery; 
that  you  will  be  pleased  to  countenance  the  restoration  of  liberty  to 
those  unhappy  men,  who  alone,  in  this  land  of  freedom,  are  degraded 
into  perpetual  bondage,  and  who,  amidst  the  general  joy  of  sur- 
rounding freemen,  are  groaning  in  servile  subjection  ; that  you  will 
devise  means  for  removing  this  inconsistency  from  the  character  of 
the  American  people ; that  you  will  promote  mercy  and  justice 
towards  this  distressed  race,  and  that  you  will  step  to  the  very  verge 
of  the  power  vested  in  you,  for  discouraging  every  species  of  traffic 
in  the  persons  of  our  fellow-men. 

“ BENJAMIN  FRANKLIN,  President 

“ Philadelphia,  February  3,  1790.” 

Mr.  Hartley  (of  Penn.)  then  called  up  the  memorial  presented 
yesterday,  from  the  annual  meeting  of  Friends  at  Philadelphia,  for 
a second  reading  ; whereupon  the  same  was  read  a second  time,  and 
moved  to  be  committed. 

Mr.  Tucker  (ofS.  C.)  was  sorry  the  petition  had  a second  reading, 
as  he  conceived  it  contained  an  unconstitutional  request,  and  from 

• 


83 


that  consideration  he  wished  it  thrown  aside.  He  feared  the  com- 
mitment of  it  would  be  a very  alarming  circumstance  to  the  South- 
ern States ; for  if  the  object  was  to  engage  Congress  in  an  uncon- 
stitutional measure,  it  would  be  considered  as  an  interference  with 
their  rights,  the  people  would  become  very  uneasy  under  the  gov- 
ernment, and  lament  that  they  ever  put  additional  powers  into  their 
hands.  He  was  surprised  to  see  another  memorial  on  the  same  sub- 
ject, and  that  signed  by  a man  who  ought  to  have  known  the  con- 
stitution better.  He  thought  it  a mischievous  attempt,  as  it  respected 
the  persons  in  whose  favor  it  was  intended.  It  would  buoy  them  up 
with  hopes,  without  a foundation,  and  as  they  could  not  reason  on 
the  subject,  as  more  enlightened  men  would,  they  might  be  led  to 
do  what  they  would  be  punished  for,  and  the  owners  of  them,  in  their 
own  defence,  would  be  compelled  to  exercise  over  them  a severity 
they  were  not  accustomed  to.  Do  these  men  expect  a general  eman- 
cipation of  slaves  by  law  ? This  would  never  he  submitted  to  by  the 
Southern  States  without  a civil  war.  Do  they  mean  to  purchase  their 
freedom  ? He  believed  their  money  would  fall  short  of  the  price. 
But  how  is  it  they  are  more  concerned  in  this  business  than  others  ? 
Are  they  the  only  persons  who  possess  religion  and  morality  ? If 
the  people  are  not  so  exemplary,  certainly  they  will  admit  the  clergy 
are  ; why  then  do  we  not  find  them  uniting  in  a body,  praying  us 
to  adopt  measures  for  the  promotion  of  religion  and  piety,  or  any 
moral  object  P They  know  it  would  be  an  improper  interference  ; 
and  to  say  the  best  of  this  memorial,  it  is  an  act  of  imprudence, 
which  he  hoped  would  receive  no  countenance  from  the  house. 

Mr.  Seney  (of  Md.)  denied  that  there  was  anything  unconstitu- 
tional in  the  memorial,  at  least,  if  there  was,  it  had  escaped  his  atten- 
tion, and  he  should  be  obliged  to  the  gentleman  to  point  it  out.  Its 
only  object  was,  that  congress  should  exercise  their  constitutional 
authority,  to  abate  the  horrors  of  slavery,  as  far  as  they  could  : In- 
deed, he  considered  that  all  altercation  on  the  subject  of  commit- 
ment was  at  an  end,  as  the  house  had  impliedly  determined  yesterday 
that  it  should  be  committed. 

Mr.  Burke  (of  S.  C.)  saw  the  disposition  of  the  house,  and  he 
feared  it  would  be  refered  to  a committee,  maugre  all  their  opposi- 
tion ; but  he  must  insist  that  it  prayed  for  an  unconstitutional  mea- 
sure. Did  it  not  desire  congress  to  interfere  and  abolish  the  slave- 
trade,  while  the  constitution  expressly  stipulated  that  congress  should 
exercise  no  such  power?  He  was  certain  the  commitment  would 
sound  an  alarm,  and  blow  the  trumpet  of  sedition  in  the  Southern 
States.  He  was  sorry  to  see  the  petitioners  paid  more  attention  to 
thau  the  constitution  ; however,  he  would  do  his  duty,  and  oppose 
the  business  totally  ; and  if  it  was  referred  to  a committee,  as  men- 
tioned yesterday,  consisting  of  a member  from  each  State,  and  he 
was  appointed,  he  would  decline  servin'?. 

Mr.  Scott,  (of  Penn.)  I can’t  entertain  a doubt  but  the  memorial 
is  strictly  agreeable  to  the  constitution  : it  respects  a part  of  the 


84 


duty  particularly  assigned  to  us  by  that  instrument,  and  1 hope  we 
may  he  inclined  to  take  it  into  consideration.  We  can,  at  present, 
lay  our  hands  upon  a small  duty  of  ten  dollars.  1 would  take  this, 
and  if  it  is  all  we  can  do,  we  must  be  content.  But  I am  sorry  that 
the  framers  of  the  constitution  did  not  go  farther  and  enable  us  to 
interdict  it  for  good  and  all  ; for  I look  upon  the  slave-trade  to  be 
one  of  the  most  abominable  things  on  earth;  and  if  there  was  neither 
God  nor  devil,  I should  oppose  it  upon  the  principles  of  humanity  and 
the  law  of  nature.  I cannot,  for  my  part,  conceive  how  any  person 
can  he  said  to  acquire  a property  in  another;  is  it  by  virtue  of  con- 
quest? What  are  the  rights  of  conquest?  Some  have  dared  to 
advance  this  monstrous  principle,  that  the  conqueror  is  absolute  mas- 
ter of  his  conquest;  that  he  may  dispose  of  it  as  his  property,  and 
treat  it  as  lie  pleases;  but  enough  of  those  who  reduce  men  to  the 
state  of  transferable  goods,  or  use  them  like  beasts  of  burden  ; who 
deliver  them  up  as  the  property  or  patrimony  of  another  man.  Let 
us  argue  on  principles  countenanced  by  reason  and  becoming  human- 
ity ; the  petitioners  view  the  subject  in  a religious  light,  but  I do  not 
stand  in  need  of  religious  motives  to  induce  me  to  reprobate  the 
traffic  in  human  flesh  ; other  considerations  weigh  with  me  to  sup- 
port the  commitment  of  the  memorial,  and  to  support  every  consti- 
tutional measure  likely  to  bring  about  its  total  abolition.  Perhaps, 
in  our  legislative  capacity,  we  can  go  no  further  than  to  impose  a 
duty  of  ten  dollars,  but  I do  not  know  how  far  I might  go,  if  1 was 
one  of  the  judges  of  the  United  States,  and  those  people  were  to 
come  before  me  and  claim  their  emancipation  ; but  I am  sure  1 would 
go  as  far  as  I could. 

Mr  Jackson  (of  Ga.)  differed  with  the  gentleman  last  up,  and  sup- 
posed the  master  had  a qualified  property  in  his  slave;  he  said  the 
contrary  doctrine  would  go  to  the  destruction  of  every  species  of 
personal  service.  The  gentleman  said  he  did  not  stand  in  need  of 
religion  to  induce  him  to  reprobate  slavery,  but  if  he  is  guided  by 
that  evidence,  which  the  Christian  system  is  founded  upon,  he  will 
find  that  religion  is  not  against  it  ; he  will  see,  from  Genesis  to  Reve- 
lation, the  current  setting  strong  that  way.  There  uever  was  a 
government  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  but  what  permitted  slavery. 
The  purest  sons  of  freedom  in  the  Grecian  republics,  the  citizens  of 
Athens  and  Lacedaemon  all  held  slaves.  On  this  principle  the  nations 
of  Europe  are  associated ; it  is  the  basis  of  the  feudal  system.  But 
suppose  all  this  to  have  been  wrong,  let  me  ask  the  gentleman,  if  it 
is  policy  to  bring  forward  a business  at  this  moment,  likely  to  light 
up  a flame  of  civil  discord,  for  the  people  of  the  Southern  States 
will  resist  one  tyranny  as  soon  as  another;  the  other  parts  of  the  con- 
tinent may  bear  them  down  by  force  of  arms,  but  they  will  never 
suffer  themselves  to  be  divested  of  their  property  without  a struggle. 
The  gentleman  says,  if  he  was  a federal  judge,  he  does  not  know 
to  what  length  he  would  go  in  emancipating  these  people  ; but,  I 
believe  his  judgment  would  be  of  short  duration  in  Georgia;  perhaps 
even  the  existence  of  such  a judge  might  be  in  danger. 


85 


Mr.  Sherman  (of  Conn.)  could  see  no  difficulty  in  committing  the 
memorial  ; because  it  was  probable  the  committee  would  understand 
their  business,  and  perhaps  they  might  bring  in  such  a report  as  would 
be  satisfactory  to  gentlemen  on  both  sides  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Baldwiu  (of  Ga.)  was  sorry  the  subject  had  ever  been  brought 
before  Congress,  because  it  was  of  a delicate  nature,  as  it  respected 
some  of  the  States.  Gentlemen  who  had  been  present  at  the  forma- 
tion of  this  Constitution,  could  not  avoid  the  recollection  of  the  pain 
and  difficulty  which  the  subject  caused  in  that  body  ; the  members 
from  the  Southern  States  were  so  tender  upon  this  point,  that  they 
had  well  nigh  broken  up  without  coming  to  any  determination  ; 
however,  from  the  extreme  desire  of  preserving  the  Union,  and  obtain- 
ing an  efficient  government,  they  were  induced  mutually,  to  concede, 
and  the  Constitution  jealously  guarded  what  they  agreed  to.  If  gen- 
tlemen look  over  the  footsteps  of  that  body,  they  will  find  the  greatest 
degree  of  caution  used  to  imprint  them,  so  as  not  to  be  easily  eradi- 
cated ; but  the  moment  we  go  to  jostle  on  that  ground,  said  be,  I fear 
we  shall  feel  it  tremble  under  our  feet.  Congress  have  no  power 
to  interfere  with  the  importation  of  slaves,  beyond  what  is  given  in 
the  9th  section  of  the  first  article  of  the  Constitution  ; every  thing 
else  is  interdicted  to  them  in  the  strongest  terms.  If  we  examine 
the  Constitution,  we  shall  find  the  expressions,  relative  to  this  subject, 
cautiously  expressed,  and  more  punctiliously  guarded  than  any  other 
part.  “ The  migration  or  importation  of  such  persons,  shall  not  be  pro- 
hibited by  Congress.”  But  lest  this  should  not  have  secured  the  object 
sufficiently,  it  is  declared  in  the  same  section,  “That  no  capitation  or 
direct  tax  shall  be  laid,  unless  in  proportion  to  the  census;”  this  was 
intended  to  prevent  Congress  from  laying  any  special  tax  upon  negro 
slaves,  as  they  might,  in  this  way,  so  burthen  the  possessors  of  them, 
as  to  induce  a general  emancipation.  If  vve  go  on  to  the  5th  article, 
we  shall  find  the  1st  and  5th  clauses  of  the  9th  section  of  the  1st 
article  restrained  from  being  altered  before  the  year  1808. 

Gentlemen  have  said,  that  this  petition  does  not  pray  for  an  aboli- 
tion of  the  slave-trade;  I think,  sir,  it  prays  for  nothing  else,  and 
therefore  we  have  no  more  to  do  with  it,  than  if  it  prayed  us  to  estab- 
lish an  order  of  nobility,  or  a national  religion. 

Mr.  Sylvester  (of  N.  Y.)  said  that  he  had  always  been  in  the  habit  of 
respecting  the  society  called  Quakers  ; he  respected  them  for  their 
exertions  in  the  cause  of  humanity,  but  he  thought  the  present  was 
not  a time  to  enter  into  a consideration  of  the  subject,  especially  as 
he  conceived  it  to  be  a business  in  the  province  ot'  the  State  legis- 
latures. 

Mr.  Lavvrance  (of  N.  Y.)  observed  that  the  subject  would  undoubt- 
edly come  under  the  consideration  of  the  Mouse;  and  he  thought, 
that  as  it  was  now  before  them,  that  the  present  time  was  as  proper 
as  any  ; he  was  therefore  for  committing  the  memorial ; and  when 
the  prayer  of  it  had  been  properly  examined,  they  could  see  how 
far  Congress  may  constitutionally  interfere ; as  they  knew  the  limits 
8 


86 


of  tlieii*  power  on  this,  as  well  as  on  every  other  occasion,  there  was 
no  just  apprehension  to  be  entertained  that  they  would  go  beyond 
them. 

Mr.  Smith  (of  S.  C.)  insisted  that  it  was  not  in  the  power  of  the 
House  to  grant  the  prayer  of  the  petition,  which  went  to  the  total 
abolishment  of  the  slave  trade,  and  it  was  therefore  unnecessary  to 
commit  it.  He  observed,  that  in  the  Southern  States,  difficulties  had 
arisen  on  adopting  the  Constitution,  inasmuch  as  it  was  apprehended, 
that  Congress  might  take  measures  under  it  for  abolishing  the  slave- 
trade. 

Perhaps  the  petitioners,  when  they  applied  to  this  House,  did  not 
think  their  object  unconstitutional,  but  now  they  are  told  that  it  is, 
they  will  be  satisfied  with  the  answer,  and  press  it  no  further.  If 
their  object  had  been  for  Congress  to  lay  a duty  of  ten  dollars  per 
head  on  the  importation  of  slaves,  they  would  have  said  so,  but  that 
does  not  appear  to  have  been  the  case  ; the  commitment  of  the  peti- 
tion, on  that  ground,  cannot  be  contended  ; if  they  will  not  be  con- 
tent with  that,  shall  it  be  committed  to  investigate  facts  P The  petition 
speaks  of  none;  for  what  purpose  then  shall  it  be  committed?  If 
gentlemen  can  assign  no  good  reason  for  the  measure,  they  will  not 
support  it,  when  they  are  told  that  it  will  create  great  jealousies  and 
alarm  in  the  Southern  States  ; for  I can  assure  them,  that  there  is 
no  point  on  which  they  are  more  jealous  and  suspicious,  than  on  a 
business  with  which  they  think  the  government  has  nothing  to  do. 

When  we  entered  into  this  Confederacy,  we  did  it  from  political, 
not  from  moral  motives,  and  I do  not  think  my  constituents  want  to 
learn  morals  from  the  petitioners  ; I do  not  believe  they  want  im- 
provement in  their  moral  system  ; if  they  do,  they  can  get  it  at  home, 

The  gentleman  from  Georgia,  has  justly  stated  the  jealousy  of  the 
Southern  States.  On  entering  into  this  government,  they  apprehend- 
ed that  the  other  States,  not  knowing  the  necessity  the  citizens  of 
the  Southern  States  were  under  to  hold  this  species  of  property, 
would,  from  motives  of  humanity  and  benevolence,  be  led  to  vote  for 
a general  emancipation  ; and  had  they  not  seen  that  the  Constitution 
provided  against  the  effect  of  such  a disposition,  I may  be  bold  to 
say,  they  never  would  have  adopted  it.  And  notwithstanding  all  the 
calmness  with  which  some  gentlemen  have  viewed  the  subject,  they 
will  find,  that  the  discussion  alone  will  create  great  alarm.  We 
have  been  told,  that  if  the  discussion  will  create  alarm,  we  ought  to 
have  avoided  it,  by  saying  nothing  ; but  it  was  not  for  that  purpose 
that  we  were  sent  here , we  look  upon  this  measure  as  an  attack 
upon  the  palladium  of  the  property  of  our  country  ; it  is  therefore  our 
duty  to  oppose  it  by  every  means  in  our  power.  Gentlemen  should 
consider  that  when  we  entered  into  a political  connexion  with  the 
other  States,  that  this  property  was  there  ; it  was  acquired  under  a 
former  government,  conformably  to  the  laws  and  Constitution  ; there- 
fore anything  that  will  tend  to  deprive  them  of  that  property,  must 
be  an  ex  post  facto  law,  and  as  such  is  forbid  by  our  political  compact. 


87 


I said  tire  States  would  never  have  entered  into  the  confederation, 
tinless  their  property  had  been  guaranteed  to  them,  for  such  is  the 
state  of  agriculture  in  that  country,  that  without  slaves  it  must  be 
depopulated.  Why  will  these  people  then  make  use  of  arguments 
to  induce  the  slave  to  turn  his  hand  against  his  master  P We  labor 
under  difficulties  enough  from  the  ravages  of  the  late  war.  A geutle- 
mau  can  hardly  come  from  that  country,  with  a servant  or  two,  either 
to  this  place  or  Philadelphia,  but  what  there  are  persons  trying  to 
seduce  his  servants  to  leave  him;  and,  when  they  have  done  this,  the 
poor  wretches  are  obliged  to  rob  their  master  in  order  to  obtain  a 
subsistence  ; all  those,  therefore,  who  are  concerned  in  this  seduction, 
are  accessaries  to  the  robbery. 

The  reproaches  which  they  cast  upon  the  owners  of  negro  prop- 
erty, is  charging  them  with  the  want  of  humanity  ; I believe  the  pro- 
prietors are  persons  of  as  much  humanity  as  any  part  of  the  continent 
and  are  as  conspicuous  for  their  good  morals  as  their  neighbors.  It 
was  said  yesterday,  that  the  Quakers  were  a society  known  to  the 
laws,  and  the  Constitution,  but  they  are  no  more  so  than  other  reli- 
gious societies ; they  stand  exactly  in  the  same  situation  ; their 
memorial,  therefore,  relates  to  a matter  in  which  they  are  no  more 
interested  than  any  other  sect,  and  can  only  be  considered  as  a piece 
of  advice  ; it  is  customary  to  refer  a piece  of  advice  to  a committee, 
but  if  it  is  supposed  to  pray  for  what  they  think  a moral  purpose,  is 
th.ii  sufficient  to  induce  us  to  commit  it?  What  may  appear  amoral 
virtue  in  their  eyes,  may  not  be  so  in  reality,  i have  heard  of  a sect 
of  Shaking  Quakers,  who,  I presume,  suppose  their  tenets  of  a moral 
tendency;  I am  informed  one  of  them  forbids  to  intermarry,  yet  in 
consequence  of  their  shakings  and  concussions,  you  may  see  them 
with  a numerous  offspring  about  them.  Now,  if  these  people  were 
to  petition  Congress  to  pass  a law  prohibiting  matrimony,  I ask, 
would  gentlemen  agree  to  refer  such  a petition  ? 1 think  if  they 

would  reject  one  of  that  nature,  as  improper,  they  ought  also  to  reject 
this. 

Mr.  Page  (ofVa.)  was  in  favor  of  the  commitment;  he  hoped  that 
the  designs  of  the  respectable  memorialists  would  not  be  stopped  at 
the  threshold,  in  order  to  preclude  a fair  discussion  of  the  prayer  of 
the  memorial.  He  observed  that  gentlemen  had  founded  their  argu- 
ments upon  a misrepresentation  ; for  the  object  of  the  memorial  was 
not  declared  to  be  the  total  abolition  of  the  slave  trade ; but  that  Con- 
gress would  consider,  whether  it  be  not  in  reality  within  their  power 
to  exercise  justice  and  mercy,  which,  if  adhered  to,  they  cannot  doubt 
must  produce  the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade.  If  then  the  prayer 
contained  nothing  unconstitutional,  he  trusted  the  meritorious  effort 
would  not  be  frustrated.  With  respect  to  the  alarm  that  was  appre- 
hended, he  conjectured  there  u’as  none;  but  there  might  be  just 
cause,  if  the  memorial  was  not  taken  into  consideration.  He  placed 
himself  in  the  case  of  a slave,  and  said,  that,  on  hearing  that  Congress 
had  refused  to  listen  to  the  decent  suggestions  of  a respectable  part 


88 


of  the  community,  he  should  infer,  that  the  general  government  (from 
which  was  expected  great  good  would  result  to  every  class  of  citi- 
zens) had  shut  their  ears  against  the  voice  of  humanity,  and  he  should 
despair  of  any  alleviation  of  the  miseries  he  and  his  posterity  had 
in  prospect;  if  anything  could  induce  him  to  rebel,  it  must  be  a 
stroke  like  this,  impressing  on  his  mind  all  the  horrors  of  despair. 
But  if  he  was  told,  that  application  was  made  in  his  behalf,  and  that 
Congress  were  willing  to  hear  what  could  be  urged  in  favor  of  dis- 
couraging the  practice  of  importing  his  fellow-wretches,  he  would 
trust  in  their  justice  and  humanity,  and  wait  the  decision  patiently. 
He  presumed  that  these  unfortunate  people  would  reason  in  the  same 
way  ; and  he,  therefore,  conceived  the  most  likely  way  to  prevent 
danger,  was  to  commit  the  petition.  He  lived  in  a State  which  had 
the  misfortune  of  having  in  her  bosom  a great  number  of  slaves,  he 
held  many  of  them  himself,  and  was  as  much  interested  in  the  busi- 
ness, he  believed,  as  any  gentleman  in  South  Carolina  or  Georgia, 
yet,  if  he  was  determined  to  hold  them  in  eternal  bondage,  he  should 
feel  no  uneasiness  or  alarm  on  account  of  the  present  measure, 
because  he  should  rely  upon  the  virtue  of  Congress,  that  they  would 
not  exercise  any  unconstitutional  authority. 

Mr.  Madison  (of  Va.)  The  debate  has  taken  a serious  turn,  and 
it  will  be  owing  to  this  alone  if  an  alarm  is  created  ; for  had  the  me- 
morial been  treated  in  the  usual  way,  it  would  have  been  considered 
as  a matter  of  course,  and  a report  might  have  been  made,  so  as  to 
have  given  general  satisfaction. 

If  there  was  the  slightest  tendency  by  the  commitment  to  break 
in  upon  the  constitution,  he  would  object  to  it;  but  he  did  not  see 
upon  what  ground  such  an  event  was  to  be  apprehended.  The 
petition  prayed,  in  general  terms,  for  the  interference  of  congress,  so 
far  as  they  were  constitutionally  authorized;  but  even  if  its  prayer 
was,  in  some  degree,  unconstitutional,  it  might  be  committed,  as  was 
the  case  on  Mr.  Churchman’s  petition,  one  part  of  which  was  sup- 
posed to  apply  for  an  unconstitutional  interference  by  the  general 
government. 

He  admitted  that  congress  was  restricted  by  the  constitution  from 
taking  measures  to  abolish  the  slave-trade  ; yet  there  were  a variety 
of  ways  by  which  they  could  countenance  the  abolition,  and  they 
might  make  some  regulations  respecting  the  introduction  of  them 
into  the  new  States,  to  be  formed  out  of  the  Western  Territory,  dif- 
ferent from  what  they  could  in  the  old  settled  States.  He  thought 
the  object  well  worthy  of  consideration. 

Mr.  Gerry  (of  Mass.)  thought  the  interference  of  congress  fully 
compatible  with  the  constitution,  and  could  not  help  lamenting  the 
miseries  to  which  the  natives  of  Africa  were  exposed  by  this  inhuman 
commerce;  and  said  that  he  never  contemplated  the  subject,  without 
reflecting  what  his  own  feelings  would  be,  in  case  himself,  his  child- 
ren, or  friends,  were  placed  in  the  same  deplorable  circumstances. 
He  then  adverted  to  the  flagrant  acts  of  cruelty  which  are  committed 


89 


in  carrying  on  that  traffic;  and  asked  whether  it  can  be  supposed, 
that  congress  has  no  power  to  prevent  such  transactions  ? He  then 
referred  to  the  constitution,  and  pointed  out  the  restrictions  laid  on 
the  general  government  respecting  the  importation  of  slaves.  It  was 
not,  he  presumed,  in  the  contemplation  of  any  gentleman  in  this 
house  to  violate  that  part  of  the  constitution;  but  that  we  have  a right 
to  regulate  this  business,  is  as  clear  as  that  we  have  any  rights 
whatever;  nor  has  the  contrary  been  shown  by  any  person  who  has 
spoken  on  the  occasion.  Congress  can,  agreeable  to  the  constitu- 
tion, lay  a duty  of  ten  dollars  on  imported  slaves;  they  may  do  this 
immediately.  He  made  a calculation  of  the  value  of  the  slaves  in  the 
Southern  States,  and  supposed  they  might  be  worth  ten  millions  of 
dollars ; congress  have  a right,  if  they  see  proper,  to  make  a proposal 
to  the  Southern  States  to  purchase  the  whole  of  them,  and  their  re- 
sources in  the  Western  Territory  may  furnish  them  with  means. 
He  did  not  intend  to  suggest  a measure  of  this  kind,  he  only  in- 
stanced these  particulars,  to  show  that  congress  certainly  have  a 
right  to  intermeddle  in  the  business.  He  thought  that  no  objection 
had  been  offered,  of  any  force,  to  prevent  the  commitment  of  the 
memorial. 

Mr.  Boudinot  (of  N.  J.)  bad  carefully  examined  the  petition,  and 
found  nothing  like  what  was  complained  of  by  gentlemen,  contained 
in  it ; he,  therefore,  hoped  they  would  withdraw  their  opposition,  and 
suffer  it  to  be  committed. 

Mr.  Smith  (of  S.  C.)  said,  that  as  the  petitioners  had  particularly 
prayed  congress  to  take  measures  for  the  annihilation  of  the  slave- 
trade,  and  that  was  admitted  on  all  hands  to  be  beyond  their  power, 
and  as  the  petitioners  would  not  be  gratified  by  a tax  of  ten  dollars 
per  head,  which  was  all  that  was  within  their  power,  there  was,  of 
consequence,  no  occasion  for  committing  it. 

Mr.  Stone  (of  Md.)  thought  this  memorial  a thing  of  course;  for 
there  never  was  a society,  of  any  considerable  extent,  which  did  not 
interfere  with  the  concerns  of  other  people,  and  this  kind  of  inter- 
ference, whenever  it  has  happened,  has  never  failed  to  deluge  the 
country  in  blood:  on  this  principle  he  was  opposed  to  the  commit- 
ment. 

The  question  on  the  commitment  being  about  to  be  put,  the  yeas 
and  nays  were  called  for,  and  are  as  follows:  — 

Yeas. — Messrs.  Ames,  Benson,  Boudinot,  Brown,  Cadwallader, 
Clymer,  Fitzsimons,  Floyd,  Foster,  Gale,  Gerry,  Gilman,  Goodhue, 
Griffin,  Grout,  Hartley,  Hathorne,  Heister,  Huntington,  Lawrance, 
Lee,  Leonard,  Livermore,  Madison,  Moore,  Muhlenberg,  Page,  Parker, 
Partridge,  Renssellaer,  Schureman,  Scott,  Sedgwick,  Seney,  Sher- 
man, Sinniekson,  Smith  of  Maryland,  Sturges,  Thatcher,  Trumbull, 
Wadsworth,  White,  and  Wynkoop — 43. 

Noes — Messrs.  Baldwin,  Bland,  Bourke,  Coles,  Huger,  Jackson, 
Mathews,  Sylvester,  Smith  of  S.  C.,  Stone,  and  Tucker — 11. 

Whereupon  it  was  determined  in  the  affirmative;  and  on  motion, 
8* 


90 


the  petition  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  at  New  York,  and  the  memo- 
rial from  the  Pennsylvania  Society,  for  the  abolition  of  slavery,  were 
also  referred  to  a committee.  — Lloyd’s  Debates. 

Debate  on  Committee's  Report,  March,  1790. 

eliot’s  debates. 

Mr.  .Tucker  moved  to  modify  the  first  paragraph  by  striking  out  all 
the  words  after  the  word  opinion,  and  to  insert  the  following : that 
the  several  memorials  proposed  to  the  consideration  of  this  house,  a 
subject  on  which  its  interference  would  be  unconstitutional,  and  even 
its  deliberations  highly  injurious  to  some  of  the  States  in  the 
Union. 

Mr.  Jackson  rose  and  observed,  that  he  had  been  silent  on  the 
subject  of  the  reports  coming  before  the  committee,  because  he  wished 
the  principles  of  the  resolutions  to  be  examined  fairly,  and  to  be  de- 
cided on  their  true  grounds,  lie  was  against  the  propositions  gene- 
rally, and  would  examine  the  policy,  the  justice  and  the  use  of  them, 
and  he  hoped,  if  he  could  make  them  appear  in  the  same  light  to 
others  as  they  did  to  him  by  fair  argument,  that  the  gentlemen  in  op- 
position were  not  so  determined  in  their  opinions  as  not  to  give  up 
their  present  sentiments. 

With  respect  to  the  policy  of  the  measure,  the  situation  of  the 
slaves  here,  their  situation  in  their  native  States,  and  the  disposal 
of  them  in  case  of  emancipation,  should  be  considered.  That  slavery 
was  an  evil  habit,  he  did  not  mean  to  controvert ; but  that  habit  was 
already  established,  and  there  were  peculiar  situations  in  countries 
which  rendered  that  habit  necessary.  Such  situations  the  States  of 
South  Carolina  and  Georgia  were  in  — large  tracts  of  the  most  fer- 
tile lands  on  the  continent  remained  uncultivated  for  the  want  of 
population.  It  was  frequently  advanced  on  the  floor  of  Congress, 
how  unhealthy  those  climates  were,  and  how  impossible  it  was  for 
northern  constitutions  to  exist  there.  What,  he  asked,  is  to  be  done 
with  this  uncultivated  territory  ? Is  it  to  remain  a waste  ? Is  the 
rice  trade  to  be  banished  from  our  coasts  ? Are  congress  willing  to 
deprive  themselves  of  the  revenue  arising  from  that  trade,  and  which 
is  daily  increasing,  and  to  throw  this  great  advantage  into  the  hands 
of  other  countries  ? 

Let  us  examine  the  use  or  the  benefit  of  the  resolutions  contained 
in  the  report.  I call  upon  gentlemen  to  give  me  one  single  instance 
in  which  they  can  be  of  service.  They  are  of  no  use  to  congress. 
The  powers  of  that  body  are  already  defined,  and  those  powers  can- 
not be  amended,  confirmed  or  diminished  by  ten  thousand  resolu- 
tions. Is  not  the  first  proposition  of  the  report  fully  contained  in 
the  constitution  P Is  not  that  the  guide  and  rule  of  this  legislature. 
A multiplicity  of  laws  is  reprobated  in  any  society,  and  tend  but  to 
confound  and  perplex.  How  strange  would  a law  appear  which  was 
to  confirm  a lavv ; and  how  much  more  strange  must  it  appear  for 
this  body  to  pass  resolutions  to  confirm  the  constitution  under  which 
they  sit!  This  is  the  case  with  others  of  the  resolutions. 


91 


A gentleman  from  Maryland  (Mr.  Stone,)  very  properly  observed, 
that  the  Union  had  received  the  different  States  with  all  their  ill  hab- 
its about  them.  This  was  one  of  these  habits  established  long  before 
the  constitution,  and  could  not  now  be  remedied.  He  begged  con- 
gress to  reflect  on  the  number  on  the  continent  who  were  opposed 
to  this  constitution,  and  on  the  number  which  yet  remained  in  the 
Southern  States.  The  violation  of  this  compact  they  would  seize 
on  with  avidity ; they  would  make  a handle  of  it  to  cover  their  de- 
signs against  the  government,  and  many  good  federalists,  who  would 
be  injured  by  the  measure,  would  be  induced  to  join  them  : his  heart 
was  truly  federal,  and  it  had  always  been  so,  and  he  wished  those 
designs  frustrated.  He  begged  congress  to  beware  before  they  went 
too  far  : he  called  on  them  to  attend  to  the  interest  of  two  whole 
States,  as  well  as  to  the  memorials  of  a society  of  quakers,  who  came 
forward  to  blow  the  trumpet  of  sedition,  and  to  destroy  that  constitu- 
tion which  they  had  not  in  the  least  contributed  by  personal  service 
or  supply  to  establish. 

He  seconded  Mr.  Tucker’s  motion. 

Mr.  Smith  (of  S.  C.)  said,  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  (Mr. 
Gerry,)  had  declared  that  it  was  the  opinion  of  the  select  committee, 
of  which  he  was  a member,  that  the  memorial  of  the  Pennsylvania 
society,  required  congress  to  violate  the  constitution.  It  was  not  less 
astonishing  to  see  Dr.  Franklin  taking  the  lead  in  a business  which 
looks  so  much  like  a persecution  of  the  Southern  inhabitants,  when 
he  recollected  the  parable  he  had  written  some  time  ago,  with  a view 
of  showing  the  impropriety  of  one  set  of  men  persecuting  others  for 
a difference  of  opinion.  The  parable  was  to  this  effect : an  old  tra- 
veller, hungry  and  weary,  applied  to  the  patriarch  Abraham  for  a 
night’s  lodging.  In  conversation,  Abraham  discovered  that  the  stran- 
ger differed  with  him  on  religious  points,  and  turned  him  out  of  doors. 
In  the  night  God  appeared  unto  Abraham,  and  said,  where  is  the 
stranger?  Abraham  answered,  I found  that  he  did  not  worship  the 
true  God,  and  so  I turned  him  out  of  doors.  The  Almighty  thus  re- 
buked the  patriarch  : Have  I borne  with  him  three-score  and  ten 
years,  and  couldst  thou  not  bear  with  him  one  night?  Has  the 
Almighty,  said  Mr.  Smith,  borne  with  us  for  more  than  three-score 
years  and  ten  : he  has  even  made  our  country  opulent,  and  shed  the 
blessings  of  affluence  and  prosperity  on  our  land,  notwithstanding  all 
its  slaves,  and  must  we  now  be  ruined  on  account  of  the  tender  con- 
sciences of  a few  scrupulous  individuals  who  differ  from  us  on  this 
point  ? 

Mr.  Boudinot  agreed  with  the  general  doctrines  of  Mr.  S.,  but  could 
not  agree  that  the  clause  in  the  constitution  relating  to  the  want  of 
power  in  congress  to  prohibit  the  importation  of  such  persons  as  any 
of  the  States,  now  existing , shall  think  proper  to  admit,  prior  to  the 
year  1808,  and  authorizing  a tax  or  duty  on  such  importation  not 
exceeding  teu  dollars  for  each  person,  did  not  extend  to  negro  slaves. 
Candor  required  that  he  should  acknowledge  that  this  was  the  ex- 


92 


press  design  of  the  constitution,  and  therefore  congress  could  no 
interfere  in  prohibiting  the  importation  or  promoting  the  emancipa- 
tion of  them,  prior  to  that  period.  Mr.  Boudinot  observed,  that  he 
was  well  informed  that  the  tax  or  duty  of  ten  dollars  was  provided, 
instead  of  the  five  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  and  was  so  expressly  under- 
stood by  all  parties  in  the  convention  ; that  therefore  it  was  the  inter- 
est and  duty  of  congress  to  impose  this  tax,  or  it  would  not  be  doing 
justice  to  the  States,  or  equalizing  the  duties  throughout  the  Union. 
If  this  was  not  done,  merchants  might  bring  their  whole  capitals  into 
this  branch  of  trade,  and  save  paying  any  duties  whatever.  Mr. 
Boudinot  observed,  that  the  gentleman  had  overlooked  the  prophecy 
of  St.  Peter,  where  he  foretells  that  among  other  damnable  heresies, 
“Through  covetousness  shall  they  with  feigued  words  make  mer- 
chandize of  you.” 

[Note. — This  petition,  with  others  of  a similar  object,  was  com- 
mitted to  a select  committee;  that  committee  made  a report ; the 
report  was  referred  to  a committee  of  the  whole  house,  and  discussed 
on  four  successive  days  ; it  was  then  reported  to  the  House  with 
amendments,  and  by  the  House  ordered  to  be  inscribed  in  its  Jour- 
nals, and  then  laid  on  the  table. 

That  report,  as  amended  in  committee,  is  in  the  following  words: 

The  committee  to  whom  were  referred  sundry  memorials  from  the 
people  called  Quakers,  and  also  a memorial  from  the  Pennsylvania 
Society  for  promoting  the  abolition  of  slavery,  submit  the  following 
report,  (as  amended  in  committee  of  the  whole.) 

“First:  That  the  migration  or  importation  of  such  persons  as  any 
of  the  States  now  existing  shall  think  proper  to  admit,  cannot  be 
prohibited  by  Congress  prior  to  the  year  1808.” 

“Secondly:  That  Congress  have  no  power  to  interfere  in  the 
emancipation  of  slaves,  or  in  the  treatment  of  them,  within  any  of 
the  States  ; it  remaining  with  the  several  States  alone  to  provide  any 
regulations  therein  which  humanity  and  true  policy  may  require.” 

“ Thirdly  : That  Congress  have  authority  to  restrain  the  citizens  of 
the  United  States  from  carrying  on  the  African  Slave  trade,  for  the 
purpose  of  supplying  foreigners  with  slaves,  and  of  providing  by 
proper  regulations  for  the  humane  treatment,  during  their  passage,  of 
slaves  imported  by  the  said  citizens  into  the  states  admitting  such 
importations.” 

“Fourthly:  That  Congress  have  also  authority  to  prohibit  foreign- 
ers from  fitting  out  vessels  in  any  part  of  the  United  States  for 
transporting  persons  from  Africa  to  any  foreign  port.”] 


93 


ADDRESS 

OF  THE 

EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE 

O F 

THE  AMERICAN  ANTI-SLAVERY  SOCIETY 

TO  THE 

Friends  of  Freedom  and  Emancipation  in  tlie  II.  States. 


At  the  Tenth  Anniversary  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society, 
held  in  the  city  of  New-York,  May  7th,  1844, — after  grave  delibera- 
tion, and  a long  and  earnest  discussion, — it  was  decided,  by  a vote  of 
nearly  three  to  one  of  the  members  present,  that  fidelity  to  the  cause 
of  human  freedom,  hatred  of  oppression,  sympathy  for  those  who  are 
held  in  chains  and  slavery  in  this  republic,  and  allegiance  to  God, 
require  that  the  existing  national  compact  should  be  instantly  dis- 
solved ; that  secession  from  the  government  is  a religious  and  political 
duty;  that  the  motto  inscribed  on  the  banner  of  Freedom  should  be, 
NO  UNION  WITH  SLAVEHOLDERS  ; that  it  is  impracticable  for 
tyrants  and  the  enemies  of  tyranny  to  coalesce  and  legislate  together 
for  the  preservation  of  human  rights,  or  the  promotion  of  the  interests 
of  Liberty ; and  that  revolutionary  ground  should  be  occupied  by  all 
those  who  abhor  the  thought  of  doing  evil  that  good  may  come,  and 
who  do  not  mean  to  compromise  the  principles  of  Justice  and 
Humanity. 

A decision  involving  such  momentous  consequences,  so  well  calcu- 
lated to  startle  the  public  mind,  so  hostile  to  the  established  order  of 
things,  demands  of  us,  as  the  official  representatives  of  the  American 
Society,  a statement  of  the  reasons  which  led  to  it.  This  is  due  not 
only  to  the  Society,  but  also  to  the  country  and  the  world. 

It  is  declared  by  the  American  people  to  be  a self-evident  truth, 
“ that  all  men  are  created  equal ; that  they  are  endowed  BY  THEIR 
CREATOR  with  certain  inalienable  rights  ; that  among  these  are  life, 
LIBERTY,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.”  It  is  further  maintained 
by  them,  that  “ all  governments  derive  their  just  powers  from  the 
consent  of  the  governed  that  “ whenever  any  form  of  government 
becomes  destructive  of  human  rights,  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to 
alter  or  to  abolish  it,  and  institute  a new  government,  laying  its  foun- 
dation on  such  principles,  and  organizing  its  powers  in  such  form,  as 
to  them  shall  seem  most  likely  to  effect  their  safety  and  happiness.” 
These  doctrines  the  patriots  of  1776  sealed  with  their  blood.  They 
would  not  brook  even  the  menace  of  oppression.  They  held  that 
there  should  he  no  delnv  in  resisting,  at  whatever  cost  or  peril,  the 


94 


first  encroachments  of  power  on  their  liberties.  Appealing  to  the 
great  Ruler  of  the  universe  for  the  rectitude  of  their  course,  they 
pledged  to  each  other  “their  lives,  their  fortunes  and  their  sacred 
honor,”  to  conquer  or  perish  in  their  struggle  to  bo  free. 

For  the  example  which  they  set  to  all  people  subjected  to  a despotic 
sway,  and  the  sacrifices  which  they  made,  their  descendants  cherish 
their  memories  with  gratitude,  reverence  their  virtues,  honor  their 
deeds,  and  glory  in  their  triumphs. 

It  is  not  necessary,  therefore,  for  11s  to  prove  that  a state  of  slavery 
is  incompatible  with  the  dictates  of  reason  and  humanity;  or  that  it 
is  lawful  to  throw  off  a government  which  is  at  war  with  the  sacred 
rights  of  mankind. 

We  regard  this  as  indeed  a solemn  crisis,  which  requires  of  every 
man  sobriety  of  thought,  prophetic  forecast,  independent  judgment, 
invincible  determination,  and  a sound  heart.  A revolutionary  step 
is  one  that  should  not  be  taken  hastily,  nor  followed  under  the 
influence  of  impulsive  imitation.  To  know  what  spirit  they  are  of — 
whether  they  have  counted  the  cost  of  the  warfare — what  are  the 
principles  they  advocate — and  how  they  are  to  achieve  their  object — 
is  the  first  duty  of  revolutionists. 

But,  while  circumspection  and  prudence  are  excellent  qualities  in 
every  great  emergency,  they  become  the  allies  of  tyranny  whenever 
they  restrain  prompt,  bold  and  decisive  action  against  it. 

We  charge  upon  the  present  national  compact,  that  it  was  formed 
at  the  expense  of  human  liberty,  by  a profligate  surrender  of  principle, 
and  to  this  hour  is  cemented  with  human  blood. 

We  charge  upon  the  American  Constitution,  that  it  contains  pro- 
visions, and  enjoins  duties,  which  make  it  unlawful  for  freemen  to 
take  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  it,  because  they  are  expressly  designed 
to  favor  a slaveholding  oligarchy,  and,  consequently,  to  make  one 
portion  of  the  people  a prey  to  another. 

We  charge  upon  the  existing  national  government,  that  it  is  an 
insupportable  despotism,  wielded  by  a power  which  is  superior  to  all 
legal  and  constitutional  restraints — equally  indisposed  and  unable  to 
protect  the  lives  or  liberties  of  the  people — the  prop  and  safeguard 
of  American  slavery. 

These  charges  we  proceed  briefly  to  establish : 

I.  It  is  admitted  by  all  men  of  intelligence, — or  if  it  be  denied  in 
any  quarter,  the  records  of  our  national  history  settle  the  question 
beyond  doubt, — that  the  American  Union  was  effected  by  a guilty 
compromise  between  the  free  and  slavehoiding  States ; in  other 
words,  by  immolating  the  colored  population  on  the  altar  of  slavery, 
by  depriving  the  North  of  equal  rights  and  privileges,  and  by  incor- 
porating the  slave  system  into  the  government.  In  the  expressive 
and  pertinent  language  of  scripture,  it  was  “ a covenant  with  death,  and 
an  agreement  with  hell  ” — null  and  void  before  God,  from  the  first 
hour  of  its  inception — the  framers  of  which  were  recreant  to  duty, 
and  the  supporters  of  which  are  equally  guilty. 


95 


Tt  was  pleaded  at  the  time  of  the  adoption,  it  is  pleaded-now,  that, 
without  sucli  a compromise  there  could  have  been  no  union ; 
that,  without  union,  the  colonies  would  have  become  an  easy  prey  to 
the  mother  country;  and,  hence,  that  it  was  an  act  of  necessity, 
deplorable  indeed  when  viewed  alone,  but  absolutely  indispensable  to 
the  safety  of  the  republic. 

To  this  we  reply  : The  plea  is  as  profligate  as  the  act  was  tyran- 
nical. It  is  the  Jesuitical  doctrine,  that  the  end  sanctifies  the  means. 
It  is  a confession  of  sin,  but  the  denial  of  any  guilt  in  its  perpetration. 
It  is  at  war  with  the  government  of  God,  and  subversive  of  the  foun- 
dations of  morality.  It  is  to  make  lies  our  refuge,  and  under  false- 
hood to  hide  ourselves,  so  that  we  may  escape  the  overflowing 
scourge.  “Therefore,  thus  saith  the  Lord  God,  Judgment  will  I lay 
to  the  line,  and  righteousness  to  the  plummet;  and  the  hail  shall 
sweep  away  the  refuge  of  lies,  and  the  waters  shall  overflow  the 
hiding  place.”  Moreover,  “because  ye  trust  in  oppression  and  per- 
verseness, and  stay  thereon;  therefore  this  iniquity  shall  be  to  you  as 
a breach  ready  to  fall,  swelling  out  in  a high  wall,  whose  breaking 
cometh  suddenly  at  an  instant.  And  he  shall  break  it  as  the  breaking 
of  the  potter’s  vessel  that  is  broken  in  pieces  ; he  shall  not  spare.” 

This  plea  is  sufficiently  broad  to  cover  all  the  oppression  and  vil- 
lany  that  the  sun  has  witnessed  in  his  circuit,  siuce  God  said,  “Let 
there  be  light.”  It  assumes  that  to  be  practicable,  which  is  impossi- 
ble, namely,  that  there  can  be  freedom  with  slavery,  union  with 
injustice,  and  safety  with  bloodguiltiness.  A union  of  virtue  with 
pollution  is  the  triumph  of  licentiousness.  A partnership  between 
right  and  wrong,  is  wholly  wrong.  A compromise  of  the  principles 
of  Justice,  is  the  deification  of  crime. 

Better  that  the  American  Union  had  never  been  formed,  than  that 
it  should  have  been  obtained  at  such  a frightful  cost ! If  they  were 
guilty  who  fashioned  it,  but  who  could  not  foresee  all  its  frightful 
consequences,  how  much  more  guilty  are  they,  who,  in  full  view  of 
all  that  has  resulted  from  it,  clamor  for  its  perpetuity!  If  it  was 
sinful  at  the  commencement,  to  adopt  it  on  the  ground  of  escaping  a 
greater  evil,  is  it  not  equally  sinful  to  swear  to  support  it  for  the 
same  reason,  or  until,  in  process  of  time,  it  be  purged  from  its  cor- 
ruption P 

The  fact  is,  the  compromise  alluded  to,  instead  of  effecting  a union, 
rendered  it  impracticable;  unless  by  the  term  union  we  are  to  under- 
stand the  absolute  reign  of  the  slaveholding  power  over  the  whole 
country,  to  the  prostration  of  Northern  rights.  In  the  just  use  of 
words,  the  American  Union  is  and  always  has  been  a sham — an 
imposture.  It  is  an  instrument  of  oppression  unsurpassed  in  the 
criminal  history  of  the  world.  How  then  can  it  be  innocently  sus- 
tained ? It  is  not  certain,  it  is  not  even  probable,  that  if  it  had  not 
been  adopted,  the  mother  country  would  have  reconquered  the  colo- 
nies. The  spirit  that  would  have  chosen  danger  in  preference  to 
crime, — to  perish  with  justice  rather  than  live  with  dishonor, — to 


96 


dare  and  suffer  whatever  might  betide,  rather  than  sacrifice  the  rights 
of  one  human  being, — could  never  have  been  subjugated  by  any 
mortal  power.  Surely  it  is  paying  a poor  tribute  to  the  valor  and 
devotion  of  our  revolutionary  fathers  in  the  cause  of  liberty,  to.say 
that,  if  they  had  sternly  refused  to  sacrifice  their  principles,  they 
would  have  fallen  an  easy  prey  to  the  despotic  power  of  England. 

II.  The  American  Constitution  is  the  exponent  of  the  national 
compact.  We  affirm  that  it  is  an  instrument  which  no  man  can 
innocently  bind  himself  to  support,  because  its  anti-republican  and 
anti-christian  requirements  are  explicit  and  peremptory ; at  least,  so 
explicit  that,  in  regard  to  all  the  clauses  pertaining  to  slavery,  they 
have  been  uniformly  understood  and  enforced  in  the  same  way,  by 
all  the  courts  and  by  all  the  people ; and  so  peremptory,  that  no  indi- 
vidual interpretation  or  authority  can  set  them  aside  with  impunity. 
It  is  not  a ball  of  clay,  to  be  moulded  into  any  shape  that  party  con- 
trivance or  caprice  may  choose  it  to  assume.  It  is  not  a form  of 
words,  to  be  interpreted  in  any  manner,  or  to  any  extent,  or  for  the 
accomplishment  of  any  purpose,  that  individuals  in  office  under  it 
may  determine.  It  means  precisely  what  those  who  framed  and  adopted 
it  meant — nothing  more,  nothing  less,  as  a matter  of  bargain  and 
compromise.  Even  if  it  can  be  construed  to  mean  something  else, 
without  violence  to  its  language,  such  construction  is  not  to  be  toler- 
ated against  the  wishes  of  either  party.  No  just  or  honest  use  of  it  can 
be  made,  in  opposition  to  the  plain  intention  of  its  framers,  except  to 
declare  the  contract  at  an  end,  and  to  refuse  to  serve  under  it. 

To  the  argument,  that  the  words  “ slaves  ” and  “ slavery  ” are  not 
to  be  found  in  the  Constitution,  and  therefore  that  it  was  never 
intended  to  give  any  protection  or  countenance  to  the  slave  system, 
it  is  sufficient  to  reply,  that  though  no  such  words  are  contained  in 
that  instrument,  other  words  were  used,  intelligently  and  specifically, 
to  meet  the  necessities  of  slavert;  and  that  these  were  adopted 
in  good  faith,  to  be  observed  until  a constitutional  change  could  be  effected. 
On  this  point,  as  to  the  design  of  certain  provisions,  no  intelligent 
man  can  honestly  entertain  a doubt.  If  it  be  objected,  that  though 
these  provisions  were  meant  to  cover  slavery,  yet,  as  they  can  fairly 
be  interpreted  to  mean  something  exactly  the  reverse,  it  is  allowable 
to  give  to  them  such  an  interpretation,  especially  as  the  cause  of  freedom 
will  thereby  be  promoted  — we  reply,  that  this  is  to  advocate  fraud  and 
violence  toward  one  of  the  contracting  parties,  whose  co-operation  was 
secured  only  by  an  express  agreement  and  understanding  betiveen  them 
both,  in  regard  to  the  clauses  alluded  to  ; and  that  such  a construction, 
if  enforced  by  pains  and  penalties,  would  unquestionably  lead  to  a 
civil  war,  in  which  the  aggrieved  party  would  justly  claim  to  have 
been  betrayed,  and  robbed  of  their  constitutional  rights. 

Again,  if  it  be  said,  that  those  clauses,  being  immoral,  are  null  and 
void  — we  reply,  it  is  true  they  are  not  to  be  observed  ; but  it  is  also 
true  that  they  are  portions  of  an  instrument,  the  support  of  which, 
as  a whole,  is  required  by  oath  or  affirmation  ; and,  therefore,  because 


97 


they  are  immoral,  and  because  of  this  obligation  to  enforce 
immorality,  no  one  can  innocently  swear  to  support  tlie  Constitution. 

Again,  if  it  be  objected,  that  the  Constitution  was  formed  by  the 
people  of  the  United  Slates,  in  order  to  establish  justice,  to  promote 
the  general  welfare,  and  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to  themselves 
and  their  posterity  ; and  therefore,  it  is  to  be  so  construed  as  to  har- 
monize with  tiiese  objects  ; we  reply,  again,  that  its  language  is  not  to 
be  interpreted  in  a sense  which  neither  of  the  contracting  parties  understood, 
and  which  would  frustrate  every  design  of  their  alliance  — to  wit, 
union  at  the  expense  of  the  co'ored  population  of  the  country.  Moreover, 
nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  the  preamble  alluded  to  never 
included,  in  the  minds  of  those  who  framed  it,  those  ivho  were  then 
pitting  in  bondage  — for,  in  that  case,  a general  emancipation  of  the 
slaves  would  have  instantly  been  proclaimed  throughout  the  United 
States.  The  words,  “secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to  ourselves  and 
our  posterity,”  assuredly  meant  only  the  white  population.  “To 
promote  the  general  welfare,”  referred  to  their  own  welfare  exclu- 
sively. “ To  establish!  justice,”  was  understood  to  be  for  their  sole 
benefit  as  slaveholders,  and  the  guilty  abettors  of  slavery.  This  is 
demonstrated  by  other  parts  of  the  same  instrument,  and  by  their 
own  practice  under  it. 

We  would  not  detract  aught  from  what  is  justly  their  due  ; but  it 
is  as  reprehensible  to  give  them  credit  for  what  they  did  not  possess, 
as  it  is  to  rob  them  of  what  is  theirs.  Jt  is  absurd,  it  is  false,  it  is  an 
insult  to  the  common  sense  of  mankind,  to  pretend  that  the  Consti- 
tution was  intended  to  embrace  the  entire  population  of  the  country 
under  its  sheltering  wings;  or  that  the  parties  to  it  were  actuated  by 
a sense  of  justice  and  the  spirit  of  impartial  liberty  ; or  that  it  needs 
no  alteration,  hut  only  a new  interpretation,  to  make  it  harmonize 
with  the  object  aimed  at  by  its  adoption.  As  truly  might  it  be 
argued,  that  because  it  is  asserted  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
that  all  men  are  created  equal,  and  endowed  with  an  inalienable 
right  to  liberty,  therefore  none  of  its  signers  were  slaveholders,  and 
since  its  adoption,  slavery  has  been  banished  from  the  American  soil ! 
The  truth  is,  our  fathers  were  intent  on  securing  liberty  to  themselves, 
without  being  very  scrupulous  as  to  the  means  they  used  to  accom- 
plish their  purpose.  They  were  not  actuated  by  the  spirit  of  univer- 
sal philanthropy  ; and  though  in  words  they  recognized  occasionally 
the  brotherhood  of  the  human  race,  in  practice  they  continually  denied 
it.  They  did  not  blush  to  enslave  a portion  of  their  fellow-men, 
and  to  buy  and  sell  them  as  cattle  in  the  market,  while  they  were 
fighting  against  the  oppression  of  the  mother  country,  and  boasting  of 
their  regard  for  the  rights  of  man.  Why,  then,  concede  to  them 
virtues  which  they  did  not  possess  ? TVhy  cling  to  the  falsehood,  that 
they  were  no  respecters  of  persons  in  the  formation  of  the  government  ? 

Alas  ! that  they  had  no  more  fear  of  God,  no  more  regard  for  man, 
in  their  hearts!  “The  iniquity  of  the  house  of  Israel  and  Judah  [the 
North  and  South]  is  exceeding  great,  and  the  land  is  full  of  blood, 
9 


98 


and  the  city  full  of  perverseness;  for  they  say,  the  Lord  hath  forsaken 
the  earth,  and  the  Lord  seeth  not.” 

We  proceed  to  a critical  examination  of  the  American  Constitution, 
in  its  relations  to  slavery. 

In  Article  1,  Section  9,  it  is  declared  — “The  migration  or  im- 
portation of  such  persons  as  any  of  the  States  now  existing  shall 
think  proper  to  admit,  shall  not  he  prohibited  by  the  Congress,  prior 
to  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  eight;  but  a tax  or  duty 
may  be  imposed  on  such  importation,  not  exceeding  ten  dollars  for 
each  person.” 

In  this  Section,  it  will  be  perceived,  the  phraseology  is  so  guarded 
as  not  to  imply,  ex  necessitate,  any  criminal  intent  or  inhuman  arrange- 
ment ; and  yet  no  one  has  ever  had  the  hardihood  or  folly  to  deny, 
that  it  was  clearly  understood  by  the  contracting  parties,  to  mean 
that  there  should  be  no  interference  with  the  African  slave  trade,  on 
the  part  of  the  general  government,  until  the  year  1808.  For  twenty 
years  after  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States  were  to  be  encouraged  and  protected  in  the  prosecution  of 
that  infernal  traffic  — in  sacking  and  burning  the  hamlets  of  Africa 
— in  slaughtering  multitudes  of  the  inoffensive  natives  on  the  soil, 
kidnapping  and  enslaving  a still  greater  proportion,  crowding  them 
to  suffocation  in  the  holds  of  the  slave  ships,  populating  the  Atlantic 
with  their  dead  bodies,  and  subjecting  the  wretched  survivors  to  all 
the  horrors  of  unmitigated  bondage  ! This  awful  covenant  was 
strictly  fulfilled  ; and  though,  since  its  termination,  Congress  has 
declared  the  foreign  slave  traffic  to  be  piracy,  yet  all  Christendom 
knows  that  the  American  flag,  instead  of  being  the  terror  of  the  Afri- 
can slavers,  has  given  them  the  most  ample  protection. 

The  manner  in  which  the  9th  Section  was  agreed  to,  by  the 
national  convention  that  formed  the  constitution,  is  thus  frankly 
avowed  by  the  Lion.  Luther  Martin,*  wdio  was  a prominent  member 
of  that  body : 

“The  Eastern  States,  nofwithstand;ng  their  aversion  of  slavery,  (!)  were  very 
willing  to  indulge  the  Southern  States  at  least  with  a temporary  liberty  to  prosecute 
the  slave  trade,  provided  the  Southern  States  would,  in  their  turn,  gratify  them  by 
laying  no  restriction  on  navigation  acts  ; and.  after  a very  little  time,  the  committee, 
by  a great  majority,  agreed  on  a report,  by  which  the  general  government  was  to  be 
prohibited  from  preventing  the  importation,  of  slaves  for  a limited  time;  and  the 
restrictive  clause  relative  to  navigation  acts  was  to  be  omitted.” 

Behold  the  iniquity  of  this  agreement ! how  sordid  were  the  mo- 
tives which  led  to  it!  what  a profligate  disregard  of  justice  and 
humanity,  on  the  part  of  those  who  had  solemnly  declared  the  inalien- 
able right  of  all  men  to  be  free  and  equal,  to  be  a self-evident  truth! 

It  is  due  to  the  national  convention  to  say,  that  this  section  was  not 
adopted  “ without  considerable  opposition.”  Alluding  to  it,  Mr. 
Martin  observes — 

“ It  was  said  we  had  just  assumed  a place  among  the  independent  nations 
in  consequence  of  our  opposition  to  the  attempts  of  Great  Britain  to  enslave 

* Speech  before  the  Legislature  of  Maryland  in  1787. 


99 


«s ; that  this  opposition  was  grounded  upon  the  preservation  of  those 
rights  to  which  God  and  nature  has  entitled  us,  not  in  / /articular , but  in 
common  with  all  the  rest  of  mankind  ; that  we  had  appealed  to  the  Supreme 
Being  for  his  assistance,  as  the  God  of  freedom,  who  could  not  but  approve 
our  efforts  to  preserve  the  rights  which  he  had  thus  imparted  to  his  crea- 
tures ; that  now,  when  we  had  scarcely  risen  from  our  knees,  from  suppli- 
cating his  mercy  and  protection  in  forming  our  government  over  a free 
people,  a government  formed  pretendedly  on  the  principles  of  liberty,  and 
for  its  preservation, — in  that  government  to  have  a provision,  not  only  of 
putting  out  of  its  power  to  restrain  and  prevent  the  slave  trade,  even  en- 
couraging that  most  infamous  traffic,  bv  giving  the  States  the  power  and 
influence  in  the  Union  in  proportion  as  they  cruelly  and  wantonly  sported 
with  the  rights  of  their  fellow-creatures,  ought  to  be  considered  as  a solemn 
mockery  of,  and  insult  to,  that  God  whose  protection  we  had  thus  implored, 
and  could  not  fail  to  hold  us  up  in  detestation,  and  render  us  contemptible 
to  every  true  friend  of  liberty  in  the  world.  It  was  said  that  national 
crimes  can  only  be,  and  frequently  are,  punished  in  this  world  by  national 
punishments,  and  that  the  continuance  of  the  slave  trade,  and  thus  giving  it 
a national  character,  sanction,  and  encouragement,  ought  to  be  considered 
as  justly  exposing  us  to  the  displeasure  and  vengeance  of  him  who  is 
equally  the  Lord  of  all,  and  who  views  with  equal  eye  the  poor  African 
stare  and  his  American  master  ! (I) 

“It  was  urged  that,  by  this  system,  we  were  giving  the  general  govern- 
ment full  and  absolute  power  to  regulate  commerce,  under  which  general 
power  it  would  have  a right  to  restrain,  or  totally  prohibit,  the  slave  trade  : 
it  must,  therefore,  appear  to  the  world  absurd  and  disgraceful  to  the  last 
degree  that  we  should  except  from  the  exercise  of  that  power  the  only 
branch  of  commerce  which  is  unjustifiable  in  its  nature,  and  contrary  to 
the  rights  of  mankind.  That,  on  the  contrary,  we  ought  to  prohibit  ex- 
pressly, in  our  Constitution,  the  further  importation  of  slaves,  and  to 
authorize  the  general  government,  from  time  to  time,  to  make  such  regu- 
lations as  should  be  thought  most  advantageous  for  the  gradual  abolition 
of  slavery,  and  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves  already  in  the  States.  That 
slavery  is  inconsistent  with  the  genius  of  republicanism,  and  has  a ten- 
dency to  destroy  those  principles  on  which  it  is  supported,  as  it  lessens  the 
sense  of  the  equal  rights  of  mankind,  and  habituates  to  tyranny  and  oppres- 
sion. It  was  further  urged  that,  by  this  system  of  government,  every 
State  is  to  be  protected  both  from  foreign  invasion  and  from  domestic 
insurrections;  and,  from  this  consideration,  it  was  of  the  utmost  importance 
it  should  have  the  powrer  to  restrain  the  importation  of  slaves,  since  in 
proportion  as  the  number  of  slaves  increased  in  any  State,  in  the  same 
proportion  is  the  State  weakened  and  exposed  to  foreign  invasion  and 
domestic  insurrection  ; and  by  so  much  less  will  it  be  able  to  protect  itself 
against  either,  and  therefore  by  so  much,  want  aid  from,  and  be  a burden 
to,  the  Union. 

“ It  was  further  said,  that,  in  this  system,  as  we  were  giving  the  general 
government  power,  under  the  idea  of  national  character,  or  national  inter- 
est, to  regulate  even  our  weights  and  measures,  and  have  prohibited  all 
possibility  of  emitting  paper  money,  and  passing  insolvent  laws,  &c.,  it 
must  appear  still  more  extraordinary  that  we  prohibited  the  government 
from  interfering  with  the  slave  trade,  than  which  nothing  could  more  effect 
our  national  honor  and  interest. 

“ These  reasons  influenced  me,  both  in  the  committee  and  in  the  conven- 
tion, most  decidedly  to  oppose  and  vote  against  the  clause,  as  it  now 
makes  part  of  the  system.”  * 

(1)  How  terribly  and  justly  has  this  guilty  nation  been  scourged,  since  these 
words  were  spoken,  on  account  of  slavery  and  the  slave  trade  ! 

* Secret  Proceedings,  p.  64. 


100 


Happy  had  it  been  for  this  nation,  had  these  solemn  considerations 
been  heeded  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution!  But  lor  the  sake 
of  securing  some  local  advantages,  they  choose  to  do  evil  that  good 
may  come,  and  to  make  the  end  sanctily  the  means.  They  were 
willing  to  enslave  others,  that  they  might  secure  their  own  freedom. 
They  did  this  deed  deliberately,  with  their  e)es  open,  with  all  the 
facts  and  consequences  arising  therefrom  before  them,  in  violation  of 
all  their  heaven-attested  declarations,  and  in  atheistical  distrust  of  the 
overruling. power  of  (Jod.  “The  Eastern  States  were  very  willing 
to  indulge  the  Southern  States”  in  the  unrestricted  prosecution  of 
their  piratical  traffic,  piovided  in  return  they  could  he  gratified  by  no 
restriction  being  laid  on  navigation  acts!! — Had  there  been  no  other 
provision  of  the  Constitution  justly  liable  to  objection,  this  one  alone 
rendered  the  support  of  that  instrument  incompatible  with  the  duties 
which  men  owe  to  their  Creator,  and  to  each  other.  It  was  the 
poisonous  infusion  in  the  cup,  which,  though  constituting  but  a 
very  slight  portion  of  its  contents,  perilled  the  life  of  every  one 
who  partook  of  it. 

li  it  be  asked  to  what  purpose  are  these  animadversions,  since  the 
clause  alluded  to  has  long  since  expired  by  its  own  limitation  — we 
answer,  that,  if  at  any  time  the  foreign  slave  trade  could  be  constitu- 
tionally prosecuted,  it  may  yet  be  renewed,  under  the  Constitution,  at 
the  pleasure  of  Congress,  whose  prohibitory  statute  is  liable  to  be 
reversed  at  any  moment,  in  the  frenzy  of  Southern  opposition  to 
emancipation.  It  is  ignorantly  supposed  that  the  bargain  was,  that 
the  traffic  should  cease  in  1808;  but  the  only  thing  secured  by  it  was, 
the  right  of  Congress  (not  any  obligation)  to  prohibit  it  at  that  period. 
If,  therefore,  Congress  had  not  chosen  to  exercise  that  right,  the  traffic 
might  have  been  prolonged  indefinitely , under  the  Constitution.  The  right 
to  destroy  any  particular  branch  ol  commerce,  implies  the  right  to 
re-establish  it.  True,  there  is  no  probability  that  the  African  slave 
trade  will  ever  again  he  legalized  by  the  national  government;  hut 
no  credit  is  due  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  on  this  ground  ; for, 
while  they  threw  around  it  all  the  sanction  and  protection  of  the 
national  character  and  power  for  twenty  years,  iluy  set  no  bounds  to 
its  continuance  by  any  positive  constitutional  prohibition. 

Again,  the  adoption  of  such  a clause,  and  the  faithful  execution 
of  it,  prove  what  was  meant  by  the  w ords  ol  the  preamble to 
form  a more  perfect  union,  establish  justice,  insure  domestic  tran- 
quillity, provide  for  the  common  defence,  promote  the  general  welfare, 
and  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity  ” — • 
namely,  that  the  parties  to  the  Constitution  regarded  only  their  own 
rights  and  interests,  and  never  intended  that  its  language  should  be 
so  interpreted  as  to  interfere  with  slavery,  or  to  make  it  unlawful  for 
one  portion  of  the  people  to  enslave  another,  without  an  express  alter- 
ation in  that  instrument,  in  the  manner  therein  set  forth.  W bile,  there- 
fore, the  Constitution  remains  as  it  was  originally  adopted,  they  who 
swear  to  support  it  are  bound  to  comply  with  all  its  provisions,  as  a 


101 


matter  of  allegiance.  For  it  avails  nothing  to  say,  that  some  of 
those  provisions  are  at  war  with  the  law  of  God  and  the  rights  of 
man,  aud  therefore  are  not  obligatory.  Whatever  may  be  their 
character,  they  are  constitutionally  obligatory  ; and  whoever  feels  that 
he  cannot  execute  them,  or  swear  to  execute  them,  without  commit- 
ting sin,  has  no  other  choice  left  than  to  withdraw  from  the  govern- 
ment, or  to  violate  his  conscience  by  taking  on  his  lips  an  impious 
promise.  The  object  of  the  Constitution  is  riot  to  detine  what  is  the 
law  of  God,  but  WHAT  IS  Til  1C  WILL  OF  THE  PEOPLE  — 
which  will  is  not  to  be  frustrated  by  an  ingenious  moral  interpreta- 
tion, by  those  whom  they  have  elected  to  serve  them. 

Article'!,  Sect.  2,  provides  — “Representatives  and  direct  taxes 
shall  lie  apportioned  among  the  several  States,  which  may  be  includ- 
ed within  this  Union,  according  to  their  respective  numbers,  which 
shall  be  determined  by  adding  to  the  whole  number  of  free  persons, 
including  those  bound  to  service  for  a term  of  years,  and  excluding 
Indians  not  taxed,  three-fifths  of  all  other  persons." 

Here,  as  in  the  clause  we  have  already -examined,  veiled  beneath  a 
form  of  words  as  deceitful  as  it  is  unmeaning  in  a truly  democratic 
government,  is  a provision  for  the  safety,  perpetuity  and  augmenta- 
tion of  the  slaveholding  power  — a provision  scarcely  less  atrocious 
than  that  which  related  to  the  African  slave  trade,  and  almost  as 
afflictive  in  its  operation  — a provision  ■ still  in  force,  with  no  possi- 
bility of  its  alteration,  so  long  as  a majority  of  the  slave  States  choose 
to  maintain  their  slave  system  — a provision  which,  at  the  present 
time,  enables  the  South  to  have  twenty-five  additional  representatives 
in  Congress  on  the  score  of  property , while  the  North  is  not  allowed 
to  have  one  — a provision  which  concedes  to  the  oppressed  three- 
fifths  of  the  political  power  which  is  granted  to  all  others,  and  then 
puts  this  power  into  the  hands  of  their  oppressors,  to  be  wielded  by 
them  for  the  more  perfect  security  of  their  tyrannous  authority,  and 
the  complete  subjugation  of  the  non-slaveholding  States. 

Referring  to  this  atrocious  bargain,  Alexander  Hamilton  re- 
marked in  the  New  York  Convention — 

“ The  first  thing  objected  to,  is  that  clause  which  allows  a representation 
for  three-fifths  of  the  negroes.  Much  has  been  said  of  the  impropriety  of 
representing  men  who  have  no  will  of  their  own  : whether  this  is  reason- 
ing, or  declamation,  (!  !)  1 will  not  presume  to  say.  It  is  the  unfortunate 
situation  of  the  Southern  States  to  have  a great  part  of  their  population, 
as  well  as  property,  in  blacks.  The  regulation  complained  of  was  one 
result  of  the  spirit  of  accommodation  which  governed  the  Convention;  and 
without  this  indulgence,  NO  UNION  COULD  POSSIBLY  HAVE 
BEEN  FORMED.  But,  sir,  considering  some  peculiar  advantages  which 
we  derive  from  them,  it  is  entirely  JUST  that  they  should  be  gratified. — 
The  Southern  States  possess  certain  staples,  tobacco,  rice,  indigo,  &c. — 
which  must  be  capital  objects  in  treaties  of  commerce  with  foreign  nations  ; 
and  the  advantage  which  they  necessarily  procure  in  these  treaties  will 
be  felt  throughout  the  United  States.” 

If  such  was  the  patriotism,  such  the  love  of  liberty,  such  the 
morality  of  Alexander  Hamilton,  what  can  be  said  of  the  character 
9* 


102 


of  those  who  were  far  less  conspicuous!  than  himself  in  securing 
American  independence,  and  in  framing  the  American  Constitution  ? 

Listen,  now,  to  the  opinions  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  respecting 
the  constitutional  clause  now  under  consideration: — 

“ ‘ In  outward  show,  it  is  a representation  of  persons  in  bondage;  in 
fact,  it  is  a representation  of  their  masters, — the  oppressor  representing 
the  oppressed.’ — ‘ Is  it  in  the  compass  of  human  imagination  to  devise  a 
more  perfect  exemplification  of  the  art  of  committing  the  lamb  to  the 
tender  custody  of  the  wolf?  ’—‘The  representative  is  thus  constituted,  not 
the  friend,  agent  and  trustee  of  the  person  whom  he  represents,  but  the 
most  inveterate  of  his  foes.’ — ‘It  was  one  of  the  curses  from  that  Pandora’s 
box,  adjusted  at  the  time,  as  usual,  by  a roinprt-mi.se,  the  whole  advantage 
of  which  inured  to  the  benefit  of  the  S<  uth,  and  to  aggravate  the  burdens 
of  the  North.’ — ‘If  there  be  a parallel  to  it  in  human  history,  it  can  only 
be  that  of  the  Roman  Emperors,  who,  from  the  days  when  Julius  Caesar 
substituted  a military  despotism  in  the  place  of  a republic,  among  the 
offices  which  they  always  concentrated  upon  themselves,  was  that  of 
tribune  of  the  people.  A Roman  Emperor  tribune  of  the  people,  is  an 
exact  parallel  to  that  feature  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
which  makes  the  master  the  representative  of  his  slave.' — ‘ The  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  expressly  prescribes  that  no  title  of  nobility  shall 
be  granted  by  the  United  States.  The  spirit  of  this  interdict  is  not  a 
rooted  antipathy  to  the  grant  of  mere  powerless  empty  titles,  but  to  titles 
of  nobility  ; to  the  institution  of  privileged  orders  ot  men.  But  what  order 
of  men  under  the  most  absolute  of  monarchies,  or  the  most  aristocratic  of 
republics,  was  ever  invested  with  sucli  an  odious  and  unjust  privilege  as 
that  of  the  separate  and  exclusive  representation  of  less  than  half  a million 
owners  of  slaves,  in  the  Hall  of  this  House,  in  the  Chair  of  the  Senate, 
and  in  the  Presidential  mansion?’ — ‘This  investment  of  power  in  the 
owners  of  one  species  of  property  concentrated  in  the  highest  authorities 
of  the  nation,  and  disseminated  through  thirteen  of  the  twenty-six  States 
of  the  Union,  constitutes  a privileged  order  of  men  in  the  community, 
more  adverse  to  the  rights  of  all,  and  more  pernicious  to  the  interests  of 
the  whole,  than  any  order  of  nobility  ever  known.  To  call  government 
thus  constituted  a democracy,  is  to  insult  the  understanding  of  mankind. 
To  call  it  an  aristocracy,  is  to  do  injustice  to  that  form  of  government. 
Aristocracy  is  the  government  of  tin  but.  Its  standard  qualification  for 
accession  to  power  is  merit , ascertained  by  popular  election  recurring  at 
short  intervals  of  time.  If  even  that  government  is  prone  to  degenerate 
into  tyranny,  what  must  be  the  character  of  that  form  of  polity  in  which 
the  standard  qualification  for  access  to  power  is  wealth  in  the  possession 
of  slaves?  It  is  doubly  tainted  with  the  infection  of  riches  and  of  slavery. 
There  is  no  name  in  the  language  of  national  jvrispruilence  that  can  define 
it  — no  model  in  the  records  of  ancient  history,  or  in  the  political  theories 
of  Aristotle,  with  which  it  can  be  likened.  It  was  introduced  into  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  by  an  equivocation  — a representation 
of  property  under  the  name  of  persons.  Little  did  the  members  of  the 
Convention  from  the  free  States  foresee  what  a sacrifice  to  Moloch  was 
hidden  under  the  mask  of  this  concession.’  — ‘ The  Plouse  of  Representa- 
tives of  the  United  States  consists  of  223  members  — all,  by  the  letter  of 
the  Constitution,  representatives  only  of  persons,  as  135  of  them  really 
are  ; but  the  other  88,  equally  representing  the  persons  of  their  constitu- 
ents, by  whom  they  are  elected,  also  represent,  under  the  name  of  other 
persons,  upwards  of  two  and  a half  millions  of  shires,  held  as  the  property 
of  less  than  half  a million  of  the  white  constituents,  and  valued  at  twelve 
hundred  millions  of  dollars.  Each  of  these  88  members  represents  in  fact 
the  w7hole  of  that  mass  of  associated  wealth,  and  the  persons  and  exclusive 
interests  of  its  owners;  all  thus  knit  together,  like  the  members  of  a 


103 


moneyed  corporation,  w ith  a capital  not  of  thirty-five  or  forty  or  fifty, 
but  of  twelve  hundred  millions  of  dollars,  exhibiting  the  most  extraordi- 
nary  exemplification  of  the  anti-republican  tendencies  of  associated  wealth 
that  the  world  ever  saw.’ — ‘ Here  is  one  class  of  men,  consisting  of  not 
more  than  one  fortieth  part  of  the  whole  people,  not  more  than  one-thir- 
tieth part  of  the  free  population,  exclusively  devoted  to  their  personal 
interests  identifi  d with  their  own  as  slaveholders  of  the  same  associated 
wealth,  and  wielding  by  their  votes,  upon  every  question  of  government 
or  of  public  policy,  two-fifths  of  the  whole  power  of  the  House.  In  the 
Senate  of  the  Union,  the  proportion  of  the  slaveholding  power  is  yet 
greater.  By  the  influence  of  slavery,  in  the  States  where  the  institution 
is  tolerated,  over  their  elections,  no  other  than  a slaveholder  can  rise  to 
the  distinction  of  obtaining  a seat  in  the  Senate;  and  thus,  of  the  52 
members  of  the  federal  Senate,  26  are  owners  of  slaves,  and  as  effectively 
representatives  of  that  interest  as  the  88  members  elected  by  them  to  the 
House.’- — ‘ By  this  process  it  is  that  all  political  power  in  the  States  is 
absorbed  and  engrossed  bv  the  owners  of  slaves,  and  the  overruling  policy 
of  the  States  is  shaped  to  strengthen  and  consolidate  their  domination. 
The  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  authorities  are  all  in  their  hands  — 
the  preservation,  propagation,  and  perpetuation  of  the  black  code  of  slavery 
— every  law  of  the  legislature  becomes  a link  in  the  chain  of  the  slave ; 
every  executive  act  a rivet  to  his  hapless  fate  ; every  judicial  decision  a 
perversion  of  the  human  intellect  to  the  justification  of  wrong.’ — ‘ Its  recip- 
rocal operation  upon  the  government  of  the  nation  is,  to  establish  an  arti- 
ficial majority  in  the  slave  representation  over  that  of  the  free  people,  in 
the  American  Congress,  and  thereby  to  make  the  PRESERVATION, 
PROPAGATION,  AND  PERPETUATION  OF  SLAVERY  THE 
VITAL  AND  ANIMATING  SPIRIT  OF  THE  NATIONAL  GOV- 
ERNMENT.’— ‘The  result  is  seen  in  the  fact  that,  at  this  day,  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  the  President  of  the  Senate,  the  Speaker 
of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  five  out  of  nine  of  the  Judges 
of  the  Supreme  Judicial  Courts  of  the  United  States,  are  not  only  citizens 
of  slaveholding  States,  but  individual  slaveholders  themselves.  So  are, 
and  constantly  have  been,  with  scarcely  an  exception,  all  the  members  of 
both  Houses  of  Congress  from  the  slaveholding  States ; and  so  are,  in 
immensely  disproportionate  numbers,  the  commanding  officers  of  the  army 
and  navy  ; the  officers  of  the  customs ; the  registers  and  receivers  of  the 
land  offices,  and  the  post-masters  throughout  the  slaveholding  States. — 
The  Biennial  Register  indicates  the  birth-place  of  all  the  officers  employed 
in  the  government  of  the  Union.  If  it  were  required  to  designate  the 
owners  of  this  species  of  property  among  them,  it  would  be  little  more 
than  a catalogue  of  slaveholders.’  ” 

It  is  confessed  by  Mr.  Adams,  alluding  to  the  national  convention 
that  framed  the  Constitution,  that  “the  delegation  from  the  free 
States,  in  their  extreme  anxiety  to  conciliate  the  ascendency  of  the 
Southern  slaveholder,  did  listen  to  a compromise  between  right  and 
wrong  — between  freedom  and  slavery  ; of  the  ultimate  fruits  of  which 
they  had  no  conception,  but  which  already  even  now  is  urging  the 
Union  to  its  inevitable  ruin  and  dissolution,  by  a civil,  servile,  foreign, 
and  Indian  war,  all  combined  in  one  ; a war,  the  essential  issue  of 
which  will  be  between  freedom  and  slavery,  and  in  which  the  un- 
hallowed standard  of  slavery  will  be  the  desecrated  banner  of  the 
North  American  Union — that  banner,  first  unfurled  to  the  breeze, 
inscribed  with  the  self-evident  truths  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence.” 

Hence,  to  swear  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 


104 


as  it  is,  is  to  make  “a  compromise  between  right  and  wrong,”  and  to 
wage  war  against  human  liberty,  it  is  to  recognize  and  honor  as 
republican  legislators,  incorrigible  men-stealers,  merciless  tyrants, 
BLOOD  THIRSTY  ASSASSINS,  who  legislate  with  deadly  weap- 
ons about  their  persons,  such  as  pistols,  daggers,  and  bowie-knives, 
with  which  they  threaten  to  murder  any  Northern  senator  or  repre- 
sentative who  shall  dare  to  stain  their  honor,  or  interfere  with  their 
rights  ! They  constitute  a banditti  more  fierce  and  cruel  than  any 
whose  atrocities  are  recorded  on  the  pages  of  history  or  romance. 
To  mix  with  them  on  terms  of  social  or  religions  fellowship,  is  to 
indicate  a low  state  of  virtue;  but  to  think  of  administering  a free 
government  by  their  co-operation,  is  nothing  short  of  insanity. 

Article  IV.,  Section  2,  declares,  — ‘-No  person  held  to  service  or 
labor  in  one  State,  under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall, 
in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from 
such  service  or  labor  ; but  shall  be  delivered  up  on  claim  of  the 
party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due.” 

Here  is  a third  clause,  which,  like  the  other  two,  makes  no  men- 
tion of  slavery  or  slaves,  in  express  terms;  and  yet,  like  them,  was 
intelligently  framed  and  mutually  understood  by  the  parties  to  the 
ratification,  and  intended  both  to  protect  the  slave  system  and  to 
restore  runaway  slaves.  It  alone  makes  slavery  a national  institu- 
tion, a national  crime,  and  all  the  people  who  are  not  enslaved,  the 
body-guard  over  those  whose  liberties  have  heel)  cloven  down.  This 
agreement,  too,  has  been  fulfilled  to  the  letter  by  the  North. 

Under  the  Mosaic  dispensation  it  was  imperatively  commanded, — 
Thou  shall  not  deliver  unto  his  master  the  servant  which  is  escaped 
from  his  master  unto  thee:  he  shall  dwell  with  thee,  even  among 
you,  in  that  place  which  he  shall  choose  in  one  of  thy  gates,  where 
it  liketli  him  best:  thou  shalt  not  oppress  him.”  The  warning  which 
the  prophet  Isaiah  gave  to  oppressing  Moab  was  of  a similar  kind  : 
“Take  counsel,  execute  judgment ; make  thy  shadow  as  the  night  in 
the.  midst  of  the  noon-day;  hide  the  outcasts;  bewray  not  him  that 
wandereth.  Let  mine  outcasts  dwell  with  thee,  Moab  ; be  thou  a 
covert  to  them  from  the  face  of  the  spoiler.”  The  prophet  Ohadiah 
brings  the  following  charge  against  treacherous  Edom,  which  is  pre- 
cisely applicable  to  this  guilty  nation  : — “For  thy  violence  against 
thy  brother  Jacob,  shame  shall  come  over  thee,  and  thou  shalt  be  cut 
oft' for  ever.  In  the  day  that  thou  stoodest  on  the  other  sirle,  in  the 
day  that  the  strangers  carried  away  captive  his  forces,  and  foreigners 
entered  into  his  gates,  and  cast  lots  upon  Jerusalem,  even  thou  wast 
as  one  of  them.  But  thou  shouhlst  not  have  looked  on  the  day  of  thy 
brother,  in  the  day  that  he  became  a stranger;  neither  shouldst  thou 
have  rejoiced  over  the  children  of  Judah,  in  ihe  day  of  their  destruc- 
tion ; neither  shouldst  thou  have  spoken  proudly  in  the  day  of  dis- 
tress; neither  shouldst  thou  have  stood  in  Ihe  cross-icay,  to  cut  off  those 
of  his  that  did  escape  ; neither  shouldst  thou  have  delivered  vp  those  oj 
his  that  did  remain,  in  the  day  of  distress.” 


105 


How  exactly  descriptive  of  this  boasted  republic  is  the  impeach- 
ment of  Edom  by  the  same  prophet!  “The  pride  of  thy  heart  hath 
deceived  thee,  thou  whose  habitation  is  high;  that  saith  in  thy  heart, 
Who  shall  bring  me  down  to  the  ground  ? Though  thou  exalt  thyself 
as  the  eagle,  and  though  thou  set  thy  nest  among  the  stars,  thence 
will  1 bring  thee  down,  saith  the  Lord.”  The  emblem  of  American 
pride  and  power  is  the  eagle,  and  on  her  banner  she  has  mingled 
stars  w ith  its  stripes.  Her  vanity,  her  treachery,  her  oppression,  her 
self-exaltation,  and  her  defiance  of  the  Almighty,  far  surpass  the 
madness  and  wickedness  of  Edom.  What  shall  be  her  punishment? 
Truly,  it  may  be  affirmed  of  the  American  people,  (who  live  not  un- 
^ der  the  Levitical  but  Christian  code,  and  whose  guilt,  therefore,  is 
the  more  awful,  and  their  condemnation  the  greater,)  in  the  language 
of  another  prophet  — “They  all  lie  in  wait  for  blood;  they  hunt 
every  man  his  brother  with  a net.  That  they  may  do  evil  with  both 
hands  earnestly,  the  prince  asketh,  and  the  judge  asketh  for  a re- 
ward ; and  the  great  man,  he  uttereth  his  mischievous  desire:  so  they 
wrap  it  up.”  Likewise  of  the  colored  inhabitants  of  this  land  it  may 
be  said,  — “This  is  a people  robbed  and  spoiled;  they  are  all  of 
them  snared  in  holes,  and  they  are  hid  in  prison-houses  ; they  are  for 
a prey,  and  none  deliveretli ; for  a spoil,  and  none  saith,  Restore.” 

By  this  stipulation,  the  Northern  States  are  made  the  hunting 
ground  of  slave-catchers,  who  may  pursue  their  victims  with  blood- 
hounds, and  capture  them  with  impunity  wherever  they  can  lay  their 
robber  hands  upon  them.  At  least  twelve  or  fifteen  thousand  runa- 
way slaves  are  uow  in  Canada,  exiled  from  their  native  land,  because 
they  cotdd  not  find,  throughout  its  vast  extent,  a single  road  on  which 
they  could  dwell  in  safety,  in  consequence  of  this  provision  of  the  Con- 
stitution  ? How  is  it  possible,  then,  for  the  advocates  of  liberty  to 
support  a government  which  gives  over  to  destruction  one-sixth  part 
of  the  whole  population  ? 

It  is  denied  by  some  at  the  present  day,  that  the  clause  which 
has  been  cited,  was  intended  to  apply  to  runaway  slaves.  This  indi- 
cates either  ignorance,  or  folly,  or  something  worse.  James  Wadi- 
son,  as  one  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution,  is  of  some  authority 
on  this  point.  Alluding  to  that  instrument,  in  the  Virginia  conven- 
tion, he  said  : — 

“ Another  clause  secures  us  that  property  which  we  note  possess.  At  pre- 
sent, if  any  slave  elopes  to  those  States  where  slaves  are  free,  he  becomes 
emancipated  by  their  lavs  ; for  the  laws  of  the  States  are  uncharitable  (!)  to 
one  another  in  this  respect;  but  in  this  constitution,  ‘No  person  held  to 
service  or  labor  in  one  State,  under  the  laws  thereof,  shall,  in  consequence 
of  any  law  or  regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such  service  or  labor, 
but  shall  be  delivered  up  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or 
labor  mav  be  due.  THIS  CLAUSE  WAS  EXPRESSLY  INSERTED 
TO  ENABLE  THE  OWNERS  OF  SLAVES  TO  RECLAIM  THEM. 
This  is  a better  security  than  a y that  note  exists.  No  power  is  given  to  the 
general  government  to  interfere  with  respect  to  the  property  in  slaves  now 
held  by  the  States.” 


106 


In  the  same  convention,  alluding  to  the  same  clause,  Gov.  Ran- 
dolph said  : — 

“ Every  one  knows  that  slaves  are  held  to  service  or  labor.  And,  when 
authority  is  given  to  owners  of  slaves  to  vindicate  their  property,  can  it  be 
supposed  they  can  be  deprived  of  t ? If  a citizen  of  this  State,  in  conse- 
quence of  this  clause,  can  take  his  runaway  slave  in  Maryland,  can  it  be 
seriously  thought  that,  after  taking  him  and  bringing  him  home,  he  could 
be  made  free  ? ” 

It  is  objected,  that  slaves  are  held  as  property,  and  therefore,  as 
the  clause  refers  to  persons,  it  cannot  mean  slaves.  But  this  is  crit- 
icism against  fact.  Slaves  are  recognized  not  merely  as  pi operty, 
but  also  as  persons  — as  having  a mixed  character — as  combining 
the  human  with  the  brutal.  This  is  paradoxical,  we  admit  ; but 
slavery  is  a paradox  — the  American  Constitution  is  a paradox  — the 
American  Union  is  a paradox  — the  American  Government  is  a pa- 
radox ; and  if  any  one  of  these  is  to  be  repudiated  on  that  ground, 
they  all  are.  That  it  is  the  duty  of  the  friends  of  freedom  to  deny 
the  binding  authority  of  them  all,  and  to  secede  from  them  all,  we 
distinctly  affirm.  After  the  independence  of  this  country  had  been 
achieved,  the  voice  of  God  exhorted  the  people,  saying,  “ Execute 
true  judgment,  and  show  mercy  and  compassion,  every  man  to  his 
brother:  and  oppress  not  the  widow,  nor  the  fatherless,  the  stranger, 
nor  the  poor  ; and  let  none  of  you  imagine  evil  against  his  brother 
in  your  heart.  But  they  refused  to  hearken,  and  pulled  away  the 
shoulder,  and  stopped  their  ears,  that  they  should  not  hear;  yea, 
they  made  their  hearts  as  an  adamant  stone.”  “ Shall  I not  visit 
for  these  things?  saith  the  Lord.  Shall  not  my  soul  be  avenged  on 
such  a nation  as  this?” 

Whatever  doubt  may  have  rested  on  any  honest  mind,  respecting 
the  meaning  of  the  clause  in  relation  to  persons  held  to  service  or 
labor,  must  have  been  removed  by  the  unanimous  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  the  case  of  Prigg  versus 
The  State  of  Pennsylvania.  By  that  decision,  any  Southern  slave- 
catcher  is  empowered  to  seize  and  convey  to  the  South,  without 
hindrance  or  molestation  on  the  part  of  the  State,  and  without 
any  legal  process  duly  obtained  and  served,  any  person  or  persons, 
irrespective  of  caste  or  complexion,  whom  he  may  choose  to 
claim  as  runaway  slaves  ; and  if,  when  thus  surprised  and  attacked, 
or  on  their  arrival  South,  they  cannot  (trove  by  legal  witnesses,  that 
they  are  freemen,  their  doom  is  sealed  ! Hence  the  free  colored 
population  of  the  North  are  specially  liable  to  become  the  victims  of 
this  terrible  power,  and  all  the  other  inhabitants  are  at  the  mercy  of 
prowling  kidnappers,  because  there  are  multitudes  of  white  as  well 
as  black  slaves  on  Southern  plantations,  and  slavery  is  no  longer 
fastidious  with  regard  to  the  color  of  its  prey. 

As  soon  as  that  appalling  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  was 
enunciated,  in  the  name  of  the  Constitution,  the  people  of  the  North 
should  have  risen  tn  masse,  if  for  no  other  cause,  and  declared  the 


107 


Union  at  an  end  ; and  they  would  have  done  so,  if  they  had  not  lost 
their  manhood,  and  their  reverence  for  justice  and  liberty. 

In  the  4th  Sect,  of  Art.  IV.,  the  United  States  guarantee  to  protect 
every  State  in  the  Union  “against  domestic  violence .”  By  the  8th 
Section  of  Article  I.,  congress  is  empowered  “to  provide  for  calling 
forth  the  militia  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  Union,  suppress  insurrec- 
tions, and  repel  invasions.”  These  provisions,  however  strictly  they 
may  apply  to  cases  of  disturbance  among  the  white  population,  were 
adopted  with  special  reference  to  the  slave  population,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  keeping  them  in  their,  chains  by  the  combined  military  force 
of  the  country  ; and  were  these  repealed,  and  the  South  left  to  man- 
age her  slaves  as  best  she  could,  a servile  insurrection  .would  ere 
long  be  the  consequence,  as  general  as  it  would  unquestionably  be 
successful.  Says  Mr.  Madison,  respecting  these  clauses: — 

“ On  application  of  the  legislature  or  executive,  as  the  case  may  be,  the 
militia  of  the  other  States  are  to  be  called  to  suppress  domestic  insurrec- 
tions. Does  this  bar  the  States  from  calling  forth  their  own  militia? 
No  ; but  it  gives  them  a supplementary  security  to  suppress  insurrections 
and  domestic  violence.” 

The  answer  to  Patrick  Henry’s  objection,  as  urged  against  the 
constitution  in  the  Virginia  convention,  that  there  was  no  power  left 
to  the  States  to  quell  ati  insurrection  of  slaves,  as  it  was  wholly  vested 
in  congress,  George  Nicholas  asked  : — 

“ Have  they  it  now  ? If  they  have,  does  the  constitution  take  it  away  ? 
If  it  does,  it  must  be  in  one  of  those  clauses  which  have  been  mentioned 
by  the  worthy  member.  The  first  part  gives  the  general  government  power 
to  call  them  out  when  necessary.  Does  this  take  it  away  from  the  States  ? 
No  ! but  it  gives  an  additional  security  ; for,  beside  the  power  in  the  State 
government  to  use  their  own  militia,  it  will  be  the  duty  of  the  oeneral  aon- 
ern  eut  to  aid  them  WITH  THE  STRENGTH  OF  THE  UNION,  When 
called  for.” 

This  solemn  guaranty  of  security  to  the  slave  system,  caps  the 
climax  of  national  barbarity,  and  stains  with  human  blood  the  gar- 
ments of  all  the  people.  In  consequence  of  it,  that  system  has  mul- 
tiplied its  victims  from  five  hundred  thousand  to  nearly  three  mil- 
lions— avast  amount  of  territory  has  been  purchased,  in  order  to 
give  it  extension  and  perpetuity  — several  new  slave  States  have  been 
admitted  into  the  Union  — the  slave  trade  has  been  made  one  of  the 
great  branches  of  American  commerce  — the  slave  population,  though 
over-worked,  starved,  lacerated,  branded,  maimed,  and  subjected  to 
every  form  of  deprivation  and  every  species  of  torture,  have  been 
overawed  and  crushed,  — or,  whenever  they  have  attempted  to  gain 
their  liberty  by  revolt,  they  have  been  shot  down  and  quelled  by  the 
strong  arm  of  the  national  government;  as,  for  example,  in  the  case 
of  Nat  Turner’s  insurrection  in  Virginia,  when  the  naval  and  military 
forces  of  the  government  were  called  into  active  service.  Cuban 
bloodhounds  have  been  purchased  with  the  money  of  the  people, 
and  imported  and  used  to  hunt  slave  fugitives  among  the  everglades 


108 


of  Florida.  A merciless  warfare  has  been  waged  for  the  extermina- 
tion or  expulsion  of  the  Florida  Indians,  because  they  gave  succor  to 
those  poor  hunted  fugitives — a warfare  which  has  cost  the  nation 
several  thousand  lives,  and  forty  millions  of  dollars.  But  the  cata- 
logue of  enormities  is  too  long  to  be  recapitulated  in  the  present 
address. 

We  have  thus  demonstrated  that  the  compact  between  the  North 
and  the  South  embraces  every  variety  of  wrong  and  outrage, — is  at 
war  with  God  and  man,  caunot  be  innocently  supported,  and  deserves 
to  be  immediately  annulled.  In  behalf  of  the  Society  which  we  rep- 
resent, we  call  upon  all  our  fellow-citizens,  who  believe  it  is  right  to 
obey  God  rather  than  man,  to  declare  themselves  peaceful  revolu- 
tionists, and  to  unite  with  us  under  the  stainless  banner  of  Liberty,  | 


having  for  its  motto  — “equal  rights  for  all — NO  UNION 
Wire  SLAVEHOLDERS!” 

It  is  pleaded  that  the  Constitution  provides  for  its  own  amend- 
ment ; and  we  ought  to  use  the  elective  franchise  to  effect  this  ob- 
ject. True,  there  is  such  a proviso  ; but,  until  the  amendment  be 
made,  that  instrument  is  binding  as  it  stands.  Is  it  not  to  violate 
every  moral  instinct,  and  to  sacrifice  principle  to  expediency,  to 
argue  that  we  may  swear  to  steal,  oppress  and  murder  by  wholesale, 
because  it  may  be  necessary  to  do  so  only  for  the  time  being,  and 
because  there  is  some  remote  probability  that  the  instrument  which 
requires  that  we  should  be  robbers,  oppressors  and  murderers,  may 
at  some  future  day  be  amended  in  these  particulars  ? Let  us  not 
palter  with  our  consciences  in  this  manner  — let  us  not  deny  that 
the  compact  was  conceived  in  sin  and  brought  forth  in  iniquity  — 
let  us  not  be  so  dishonest,  even  to  promote  a good  object,  as  to  inter- 
pret the  Constitution  in  a manner  utterly  at  variance  with  the  inten- 
tions and  arrangements  of  the  contracting  parties;  but,  confessing 
the  guilt  of  the  nation,  acknowledging  the  dreadful  specifications  in 
the  bond,  washing  our  hands  in  the  waters  of  repentance  from  all 
further  participation  in  this  criminal  alliance,  and  resolving  that  we 
will  sustain  none  other  than  a free  and  righteous  government,  let  us 
glory  in  the  name  of  revolutionists,  unfurl  the  banner  of  disunion, 
and  consecrate  our  talents  and  means  to  the  overthrow  of  all  that  is 
tyrannical  in  the  land,  — to  the  establishment  of  all  that  is  free,  just, 
true  and  holy,  — to  the  triumph  of  universal  love  and  peace. 

If,  in  utter  disregard  of  the  historical  facts  which  have  been  cited, 
it  is  still  asserted,  that  the  Constitution  needs  no  amendment  to  make 
it  a free  instrument,  adapted  to  all  the  exigencies  of  a free  people, 
and  was  never  intended  to  give  any  strength  or  countenance  to  the 
slave  system  — the  indignant  spirit  of  insulted  Liberty  replies  : — 
“What  though  the  assertion  be  true  ? Of  what  avail  is  a mere  piece 
of  parchment?  In  itself,  though  it  be  written  all  over  with  words 
of  truth  and  freedom  — though  its  provisions  be  as  impartial  and  just 
as  words  can  express,  or  the  imagination  paint  — though  it  he  as  pure 
as  the  gospel,  and  breathe  only  the  spirit  of  Heaven  — it  is  power* 


109 


less  ; it  has  no  executive  vitality  ; it  is  a lifeless  corpse,  even  though 
beautiful  in  death.  1 am  famishing  for  lack  of  bread  ! How  is  my 
appetite  relieved  by  holding  up  to  my  gaze  a painted  loaf?  1 am 
manacled,  wounded,  bleeding,  dying ! What  consolation  is  it  to 
know,  that  they  who  are  seeking  to  destroy  my  life,  profess  in  words 
to  be  ray  friends?”  If  the  liberties  of  the  people  have  been  betray- 
ed — if  judgment  is  turned  away  backward,  and  justice  standeth  afar 
off,  and  truth  has  fallen  in  the  streets,  and  equality  cannot  enter  — 
if  the  princes  of  the  land  are  roaring  lions,  the  judges  evening  wolves, 
the  people  light  and  treacherous  persons,  the  priests  covered  with 
pollution  — if  we  are  living  under  a frightful  despotism,  which  scoffs 
at  all  constitutional  restraints,  and  wields  the  resources  of  the  nation 
to  promote  its  own  bloody  purposes  — tell  us  not  that  the  forms  of 
freedom  are  still  left  to  us  ! “ Woidd  such  tameness  and  submission 

have  freighted  the  May-Flower  for  Plymouth  Rock?  Would  it  have 
resisted  the  Stamp  Act,  the  Tea  Tax,  or  any  of  those  entering  wedges 
of  tyranny  with  which  the  British  government  sought  to  rive  the 
liberties  of  America  ? The  wheel  of  the  Revolution  would  have  rusted 
on  its  axle,  if  a spirit  so  weak  had  been  the  only  power  to  give  it 
motion.  Did  our  fathers  say,  when  their  rights  and  liberties  were 
infringed  — “ Ifhy,  what  is  done  cannot  he  undone.  That  is  the  first 
thought.”  No,  it  was  the  last  thing  they  thought  of:  or,  rather,  it 
never  entered  their  minds  at  all.  They  sprang  to  the  conclusion  at 
once  — “ JVhat  is  done  shall  be  undone.  That  is  our  first  and  only 
thought.” 

“ Is  water  running  in  our  veins  ? Do  we  remember  still 
Old  Plymouth  Rock,  and  Lexington,  and  famous  Bunker  Hill  ? 

The  debt  we  owe  our  fathers’  graves  ? and  to  the  yet  unborn, 

Whose  heritage  ourselves  must  make  a thing  of  pride  or  scorn  ? 

Gray  Plymouth  Rock  hath  yet  a tongue,  and  Concord  is  not  dumb  ; 

And  voices  from  our  fathers’  graves  and  from  the  future  come  : 

They  call  on  us  to  stand  our  ground  — they  charge  us  still  to  be 
Not  only  free  from  chains  ourselves,  but  foremost  to  make  free  ! ” 

It  is  of  little  consequence  who  is  on  the  throne,  if  there  be  behind 
it  a power  mightier  than  the  throne.  It  matters  not  what  is  the 
theory  of  the  government,  if  the  practice  of  the  government  he  unjust 
and  tyrannical.  We  rise  in  rebellion  against  a despotism  incompa- 
rably more  dreadful  than  that  which  induced  the  colonists  to  take  up 
arms  against  the  mother  country  ; not  on  account  of  a three-penny 
tax  on  tea,  hut  because  fetters  of  living  iron  are  fastened  on  the  limbs 
of  millions  of  our  countrymen,  and  our  most  sacred  rights  are  tram- 
pled in  the  dust.  As  citizens  of  the  State,  wo  appeal  to  the  State  in 
vain  for  protection  and  redress.  As  citizens  of  the  United  States,  we 
are  treated  as  outlaws  in  one  half  of  the  country,  and  the  national 
government  consents  to  our  destruction.  We  are  denied  the  right 
of  locomotion,  freedom  of  speech,  the  right  of  petition,  the  liberty  of 
10 


110 


the  press,  the  right  peaceably  to  assemble  together  to  protest  against 
oppression  and  plead  for  liberty  — at  least  in  thirteen  States  of  the 
Union.  If  we  venture,  as  avowed  and  unflinching  abolitionists,  to 
travel  South  of  Mason  and  Dixon’s  line,  we  do  so  at  the  peril  of  our 
lives.  If  we  would  escape  torture  and  death,  on  visiting  any  of  the 
slave  States,  we  must  stifle  our  conscientious  convictions,  bear  no 
testimony  against  cruelty  and  tyranny,  suppress  the  struggling  emo- 
tions of  humanity,  divest  ourselves  of  all  letters  and  papers  of  an  anti- 
slavery character,  and  do  homage  to  the  slaveholding  power — or 
run  the  risk  of  a cruel  martyrdom!  These  are  appalling  and  unde- 
niable facts. 

Three  millions  of  the  American  people  are  crushed  under  the 
American  Union  ! They  are  held  as  slaves  — trafficked  as  merchan- 
dise — registered  as  goods  arid  chattels  ! The  government  gives 
them  no  protection  — the  government  is  their  enemy  — the  govern- 
ment keeps  them  in  chains!  There  they  lie  bleeding  — we  are 
prostrate  by  their  side  — in  their  sorrows  and  sufferings  we  partici- 
pate— their  stripes  are  inflicted  on  our  bodies,  their  shackles  are 
fastened  on  our  limbs,  their  cause  is  ours  ! The  Union  which  grinds 
them  to  the  dust  rests  upon  us,  and  with  them  we  will  struggle  to 
overthrow  it!  The  Constitution,  which  subjects  them  to  hopeless 
bondage,  is  one  that  we  cannot  swear  to  support!  Our  motto  is, 
“NO  UNION  WITH  SLAVEHOLDERS,”  either  religious  or  po- 
litical. They  are  the  fiercest  enemies  of  mankind,  and  the  bitterest 
foes  of  God  ! We  separate  from  them  not  in  anger,  not  in  malice, 
not  for  a selfish  purpose,  not  to  do  them  an  injury,  not  to  cease 
warning,  exhorting,  reproving  them  for  their  crimes,  not  to  leave  the 
perishing  bondman  to  his  fate  — O no!  But  to  clear  our  skirts  of 
innocent  blood  — to  give  the  oppressor  no  countenance  — to  signify 
our  abhorrence  of  injustice  and  cruelty — to  testify  against  an  un- 
godly compact  — to  cease  striking  hands  with  thieves  and  consenting 
with  adulterers  — to  make  no  compromise  with  tyranny  — to  walk 
worthily  of  our  high  profession  — to  increase  our  moral  power  over 
the  nation  — to  obey  God  and  vindicate  the  gospel  of  his  Son  — to 
hasten  the  downfall  of  slavery  in  America,  and  throughout  the 
world  ! 

We  are  not  acting  under  a blind  impulse.  We  have  carefully 
counted  the  cost  of  this  warfare,  and  are  prepared  to  meet  its  conse- 
quences. It  will  subject  us  to  reproach,  persecution,  infamy  — it 
will  prove  a fiery  ordeal  to  all  who  shall  pass  through  it — it  may 
cost  us  our  lives.  We  shall  be  ridiculed  as  fools,  scorned  as  vision- 
aries, branded  as  disorgauizers,  reviled  as  madmen,  threatened  and 
perhaps  punished  as  traitors.  But  we  shall  bide  our  time.  Whether 
safety  or  peril,  whether  victory  or  defeat,  whether  life  or  death  be 
ours,  believing  that  our  feet  are  planted  on  an  eternal  foundation, 
that  our  position  is  sublime  and  glorious,  that  our  faith  in  God  is  ra- 
tional and  steadfast,  that  we  have  exceeding  great  and  precious  pro- 
mises on  which  to  rely,  that  we  are  in  the  right,  we  shall  not 


Ill 


falter  nor  be  dismayed,  “though  the  earth  be  removed,  and  though 
the  mountains  be  carried  into  the  midst  of  the  sea,” — though  our 
ranks  be  thinned  to  the  number  of  “ three  hundred  men.”  Freemen  ! 
are  you  ready  for  the  conflict  ? Come  what  may,  will  you  sever  the 
chain  that  binds  you  to  a slaveholding  government,  and  declare  your 
independence?  Up,  then,  with  the  banner  of  revolution!  Not  to 
shed  blood  — not  to  injure  the  person  or  estate  of  any  oppressor  — 
not  by  force  and  arms  to  resist  any  law  — not  to  countenance  a ser- 
vile insurrection — not  to  wield  any  carnal  weapons!  No  — ours 
must  be  a bloodless  strife,  excepting  ovr  blood  be  shed  — for  we 
aim,  as  did  Christ  our  leader,  not  to  destroy  men’s  lives,  but  to  save 
them  — to  overcome  evil  with  good — to  conquer  through  suffering 
for  righteousness’ saae  — to  set  the  captive  free  by  the  potency  of 
truth ! 

Seeede,  theD,  from  the  government.  Submit  to  its  exactions,  but 
pay  it  no  allegiance,  and  give  it  no  voluntary  aid.  Fill  no  offices 
under  it.  Send  no  senators  or  representatives  to  the  national  or 
State  legislature;  for  vvliat  you  cannot  conscientiously  perform  your- 
self, you  cannot  ask  another  to  perform  as  your  agent.  Circulate  a 
declaration  of  DISUNION  FROM  SLAVEHOLDERS,  throughout 
the  country.  Hold  mass  meetings  — assemble  in  conventions  — nail 
your  banners  to  the  mast! 

Do  you  ask  what  can  be  done,  if  you  abandon  the  ballot-box? 
V hut  did  the  crucified  Nazarene  do  without  the  elective  franchise? 
W hat  did  the  apostles  do  ? What  did  the  glorious  army  of  martyrs 
and  confessors  do  ? What  did  Luther  and  his  intrepid  associates 
do  ? Wbat  can  women  and  children  do  ? What  has  Father  Mathew 
done  for  teetotalism  ? What  has  Daniel  O’Connell  done  for  Irish 
repeal  ? “Stand,  having  your  loins  girt  about  with  truth,  and  having 
on  the  breast-plate  of  righteousness,”  and  arrayed  in  the  whole  armor 
of  God  ! 

The  form  of  government  that  shall  succeed  the  present  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  let  time  determine.  It  would  be  a waste 
of  time  to  argue  that  question,  until  the  people  are  regenerated  and 
turned  from  their  iniquity.  Ours  is  no  anarchical  movement,  but 
one  of  order  and  obedience.  In  ceasing  from  oppression,  we  estab- 
lish liberty.  What  is  now  fragmentary,  shall  in  tine  time  be  crystal- 
lized, and  shine  like  a gem  set  in  the  heavens,  for  a light  to  all  com- 
ing ages. 

Finally  — we  believe  that  the  effect  of  this  movement  will  be, — 
First,  to  create  discussion  and  agitation  throughout  the  North  ; and 
these  will  lead  to  a general  perception  of  its  grandeur  and  import- 
ance. 

Secondly,  to  convulse  the  slumbering  South  like  an  earthquake, 
and  convince  her  that  her  only  alternative  is,  to  abolish  slavery,  or 
be  abandoned  by  that  power  on  which  she  now  relies  for  safety. 

Thirdly,  to  attack  the  slave  power  in  its  most  vulnerable  point,  and 
to  carry  the  battle  to  the  gate. 


112 


Fourthly,  to  exalt  the  moral  sense,  increase  the  moral  power,  and 
invigorate  the  moral  constitution  of  all  who  heartily  espouse  it. 

We  reverently  believe  that,  in  withdrawing  from  the  American 
Union,  we  have  the  God  of  justice  with  us.  We  know  that  we  have 
our  enslaved  countrymen  with  us.  We  are  confident  that  all  free 
hearts  will  he  with  us.  We  are  certain  that  tyrants  and  their  abet- 
tors will  be  against  us. 

In  behalf  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  American  Anti-Sla- 
very Society, 

WM.  LLOYD  GARRISON,  President. 


Wendell  Phillips, 

M aria  Weston  Chapman, 


| Secretaries. 


Bos 1 07i,  May  20,  IS 44. 


LETTER  FROM  FRANCIS  JACKSON. 

Boston,  4th  July,  1844. 

To  His  Excellency  George  JV.  Briggs  : 

Sir — Many  years  since,  1 received  from  the  Executive  of  the 
Commonwealth  a corrfmission  as  Justice  of  the  Peace.  I have  held 
the  office  that  it  conferred  upon  me  till  the  present  time,  and  have 
found  it  a convenience  to  myself,  and  others.  It  might  continue  lo 
be  so,  could  I consent  longer  to  hold  it.  But  paramount  considerations 
forbid,  and  1 herewith  transmit  to  you  my  commission,  respectfully 
asking  you  to  accept  my  resignation. 

While  I deem  it  a duty  to  myself  to  take  this  step,  I feel  called 
on  to  state  the  reasons  that  influence  me. 

In  entering  upon  the  duties  of  the  office  in  question,  I complied 
with  the  requirements  of  the  law,  by  taking  an  oath  “ to  support  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States .”  1 regret  that  T ever  took  that  oath. 

Had  1 then  as  maturely  considered  its  full  import,  and  the  obligations 
under  which  it  is  understood,  and  meant  to  lay  those  who  take 
it,  as  1 have  done  since,  I certainly  never  would  have  taken  it, 
seeing,  as  ! now  do,  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  con- 
tains provisions  calculated  and  intended  to  foster,  cherish,  uphold 
and  perpetuate  slavery.  It  pledges  the  country  to  guard  and  protect 
the  slave  system  so  long  as  the  slaveholding  States  choose  to  retain 
it.  It  regards  the  slave  code  as  lawful  in  the  States  which  enact  it. 
Still  more,  “it  has  done  that,  which,  until  its  adoption,  was  never 
before  done  for  African  slavery.  It  took  it  out  of  its  former  category 
of  municipal  law  and  local  life,  adopted  it  as  a national  institution, 
spread  around  it  the  broad  and  sufficient  shield  of  national  law,  and 


113 


thus  gave  to  slavery  a national  existence.”  Consequently,  the  oath  to 
support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  a solemn  promise  to 
do  that  which  is  morally  wrong;  that  which  is  a violation  of  the 
natural  rights  of  man,  and  a sin  in  the  sight  of  God. 

I am  not,  in  this  matter,  constituting  myself  a judge  of  others.  I 
do  not  say  that  no  honest  man  can  take  such  an  oath,  and  abide  by 
it.  1 only  say,  that  / would  not  now  deliberately  take  it;  and  that, 
having  inconsiderately  taken  it,  I can  no  longer  suffer  it  to  lie  upon 
my  soul.  I take  back  the  oath,  and  ask  you,  sir,  to  take  back  the 
commission,  which  was  the  occasion  of  my  taking  it. 

I am  aware  that  my  course  in  this  matter  is  liable  to  be  regarded 
as  singular,  if  not  censurable  ; and  1 must,  therefore,  be  allowed  to 
make  a more  specific  statement  of  those  provisions  of  the  Constitution 
which  support  the  enormous  wrong,  the  heinous  sin  of  slavery. 

The  very  first  Article  of  the  Constitution  takes  slavery  at  once 
under  its  legislative  protection,  as  a basis  of  representation  in  the 
popular  branch  of  the  National  Legislature.  It  regards  slaves  under 
the  description  “of  all  other  persons  ” — as  of  only  three-fifths  of  the 
value  of  free  persons  ; thus  to  appearance  undervaluing  them  in  com- 
parison with  freemen.  But  its  dark  and  involved  phraseology  seems 
intended  to  blind  us  to  the  consideration,  that  those  underrated  slaves 
are  merely  a basis,  not  the  source  of  representation  ; that  by  the  laws, 
of  all  the  States  where  they  live,  they  are  regarded  not  as  persons. 
but  as  things ; that  they  are  not  the  constituency  of  the  representative, 
but  his  property  ; and  that  the  necessary  effect  of  this  provision  of 
the  Constitution  is,  to  take  legislative  power  out  of  the  hands  of 
men,  as  such,  and  give  it  to  the  mere  possessors  of  goods  and  chat- 
tels. Fixing  upon  thirty  thousand  persons,  as  the  smallest  number 
that  shall  send  one  member  into  the  House  of  Representatives,  it  pro- 
tects slavery  by  distributing  legislative  power  in  a free  and  in  a slave 
State  thus:  To  a congressional  district  in  South  Carolina,  containing 
fifty  thousand  slaves,  claimed  as  the  property  of  five  hundred  whites, 
who  hold,  on  an  average,  one  hundred  apiece,  it  gives. one  Represen- 
tative in  Congress;  to  a district  in  Massachusetts  containing  a popu- 
lation of  thirty  thousand  five  hundred,  one  Representative  is  assigned. 
But  inasmuch  as  a slave  is  never  permitted  to  vote,  the  fifty  thousand 
persons  in  a district  in  Carolina  form  no  part  of  “the  constituency  ;” 
that  is  found  only  in  the  five  hundred  free  persons.  Five  hundred 
freemen  of  Carolina  could  send  one  Representative  to  Congress, 
while  it  would  take  thirty  thousand  five  hundred  freemen  of  Massa- 
chusetts, to  do  the  same  thing  : that  is,  one  slaveholder  in  Carolina 
is  clothed  by  the  Constitution  with  the  same  political  power  and 
influence  in  the  Representatives  Hall  at  Washington,  as  sixty  Massa- 
chusetts men  like  you  and  me,  who  “ eat  their  bread  in  the  sweat  of 
their  own  brows.” 

According  to  the  census  of  1830,  and  the  ratio  of  representation 
based  upon  that,  slave  property  added  twenty-five  members  to  the 
House  of  Representatives.  And  as  it  has  been  estimated,  (as  at» 
10* 


114 


approximation  to  the  truth,)  that  the  two  and  a half  million  slaves  in 
the  United  States  are  held  as  property  by  about  two  hundred  and 
fifty  thousand  persons  — giving  an  average  of  ten  slaves  to  each 
slaveholder,  those  twenty-five  Representatives,  each  chosen,  at  most, 
by  only  ten  thousand  voters,  and  probably  by  less  than  three- 
fourths  of  that  number,  were  the  representatives,  not  only  of  the  two 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  persons  who  chose  them;  but  of  property 
which,  five  years  ago,  when  slaves  were  lower  in  market,  than  at 
present,  were  estimated,  by  the  man  who  is  now  the  most  prominent 
candidate  for  the  Presidency,  at  twelve  hundred  millions  of  dollars 

— a sum,  which,  by  the  natural  increase  of  five  years,  and  the 
enhanced  value  resulting  from  a more  prosperous  state  of  the  plant- 
ing interest,  cannot  now  be  less  than  fifteen  hundred  millions  of  dol- 
lars. All  this  vast  amount  of  property,  as  it  is  li  peculiar,”  is  also 
identical  in  its  character.  In  Congress,  as  we  have  seen,  it  is  ani- 
mated by  one  spirit,  moves  in  one  mass,  and  is  wielded  with  one 
aim  ; and  when  we  consider  that  tyranny  is  always  timid,  and  des- 
potism distrustful,  we  see -that  this  vast  money  power  w ould  be  false 
to  itself,  did  it  not  direct  all  its  eyes  and  hands,  and  put  forth  all  its 
ingenuity  arid  energy,  to  one  end  — self-protection  and  self- perpetu- 
ation. And  this  it  has  ever  done.  In  all  the  vibrations  of  the  politi- 
cal scale,  whether  in  relation  to  a Bank  or  Sub-Treasury,  Free  Trade 
or  a Tariff',  this  immense  pow  er  has  moved,  and  w ill  continue  to 
move,  in  one  mass,  for  its  own  protection. 

While  the  weight  of  the  slave  influence  is  thus  felt  in  the  House 
of  Representatives,  “in  the  Senate  of  the  Union,”  says  John  Quincy 
Adams,  “ the  proportion  of  slaveholding'  power  is  still  greater.  By 
the  influence  of  slavery  in  the  States  where  the  institution  is  tolerated, 
over  their  elections,  no  other  than  a slaveholder  can  rise  to  the  dis- 
tinction of  obtaining  a seat  in  the  Senate;  and  thus,  of  the  fifty-two 
members  of  the  federal  Senate,  twenty-six  are  owners  of  slaves,  and 
are  as  effectually  representatives  of  that  interest,  as  the  eighty-eight 
members  elected  by  them  to  the  House.” 

The  dominant  power  which  the  Constitution  gives  to  the  slave 
interest,  as  thus  seen  and  exercised  in  the  Legislative  Halls  of  our 
nation,  is  equally  obvious  and  obtrusive  in  every  other  department 
of  the  National  government. 

In  the  Electoral  colleges,  the  same  cause  produces  the  same  effect 

— the  same  power  is  wielded  for  the  same  purpose,  as  in  the  Halls 
of  Congress.  Even  the  preliminary  nominating  conventions,  before 
they  dare  name  a candidate  for  the  highest  office  iti  the  gift  of  the 
people,  must  ask  of  the  Genius  of  slavery,  to  what  votary  she  will 
show'  herself  propitious.  This  very  year,  we  see  both  the  great 
political  parties  doing  homage  to  the  slatfe  power,  by  nominating 
each  a slaveholder  for  the  chair  of  State.  The  candidate  of  one 
party  declares,  “ I should  have  opposed,  and  woidd  continue  to 
oppose,  any  scheme  whatever  of  emancipation,  either  gradual  or  im- 
mediate;” and  adds,  “It  is  not  true,  and  I rejoice  that  it  is  not  true, 


that  either  of  the  two  great  parties  of  this  country  has  any  design  or 
aim  at  abolition.  I should  deeply  lament  it,  if  it  were  true.”  * 

The  other  party  nominates  a man  who  says,  “ I have  no  hesitation 
in  declaring  that  I am  in  favor  of  the  immediate  re-annexation  of 
Texas  to  the  territory  and  government  of  the  United  States.” 

Thus  both  the  political  parties,  and  the  candidates  of  both,  vie 
with  each  other,  in  offering  allegiance  to  the  slave  power,  as  a con- 
dition precedent  to  any  hope  of  success  in  the  struggle  for  the  execu- 
tive chair ; a seat  that,  for  more  than  three-fourths  of  the  existence  of 
our  constitutional  government,  has  been  occupied  by  a slaveholder. 

The  same  stern  despotism  overshadows  even  the  sanctuaries  of 
justice.  Of  the  nine  Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  five  are  slaveholders,  and  of  course,  must  be  faithless  to  their 
own  interest,  as  well  as  recreant  to  the  power  that  gives  them  place, 
or  must,  so  far  as  they  are  concerned,  give  both  to  law  and  constitu- 
tion such  a construction  as  shall  justify  the  language  of  John  Quincy 
Adams,  when  lie  says The  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial 
authorities,  are  ail  in  their  hands  — for  the  preservation,  propagation, 
arid  perpetuation  of  the  black  code  of  slavery.  Every  law  of  the 
legislature  becomes  a link  in  the  chain  of  the  slave;  every  executive 
act  ti  rivet  to  his  hapless  fate  ; every  judicial  decision  a perversion  of 
the  human  intellect  to  the  justification  of  wrong.” 

Thus  by  merely  adverting  but  briefly  to  the  theory  and  the  prac- 
tical effect  of  this  clause  of  the  Constitution,  that  1 have  sworn  to 
support,  it  is  seen  that  it  throws  the  political  power  of  the  nation 
into  the  hands  of  the  slaveholders  ; a body  of  men,  which,  however 
it  may  be  regarded  by  the  Constitution  as  “ persons,”  is  in  fact  and 
practical  effect,  a vast  moneyed  corporation,  bound  together  by  an 
indissoluble  unity  of  interest,  by  a common  sense  of  a common  dan- 
ger; counselling  at  all  times  for  its  common  protection;  wielding 
the  whole  power,  and  controlling  the  destiny  of  the  nation. 

If  we  look  into  the  legislative  halls,  slavery  is  seen  in  the  chair  of 
the  presiding  officer  of  each,  and  controlling  the  action  of  both. 
Slavery  occupies,  by  prescriptive  right,  the  Presidential  chair.  The 
paramount  voice  that  comes  from  the  temple  of  national  justice, 
issues  from  the  lips  of  slavery.  The  army  is  in  the  hands  of  slavery, 
and  at  her  bidding,  must  encamp  in  the  everglades  of  Florida,  or 
march  from  the  Missouri  to  the  borders  of  Mexico,  to  look  after  her 
interests  in  Texas. 

The  navy,  even  that  part  that  is  cruising  off  the  coast  of  Africa,  to 
suppress  the  foreign  slave  trade,  is  in  the  hands  of  slavery. 

Freemen  of  the  North,  who  have  even  dared  to  lift  up  their  voice 
against  slavery,  cannot  travel  through  the  slave  States,  but  at  the 
peril  of  their  lives. 

The  representatives  of  freemen  are  forbidden,  on  the  floor  of  Con- 

* Henry  Clay’s  speech  in  the  United  States  Senate  in  1839,  and  confirmed  at 
Raleigh,  N.  C.  18J4. 


116 


gross,  to  remonstrate  against  the  encroachments  of  slavery,  or  to  pray 
that  she  would  let  her  poor  victims  go. 

1 renounce  my  allegiance  to  a Constitution  that  enthrones  such  a 
power,  wielded  for  the  purpose  of  depriving  me  of  my  rights,  of  rob- 
bing my  countrymen  of  their  liberties,  and  of  securing  its  own  pro- 
tection, support  and  perpetuation. 

Passing  by  that  clause  of  the  Constitution,  which  restricted  Con- 
gress for  twenty  years,  from  passing  any  law  against  the  African 
slave  trade,  and  which  gave  authority  to  raise  a revenue  on  the  stolen 
sons  of  Africa,  I come  to  that  part  of  the  fourth  article,  which  guar- 
antees protection  against  “ domestic  violence ,”  and  whieh  pledges  to 
the  South  the  military  force  of  the  country,  to  protect  the  masters 
against  their  insurgent  slaves  : binds  us,  and  our  children,  to  shoot 
down  our  fellow-countrymen,  who  may  rise,  in  emulation  of  our  rev- 
olutionary fathers,  to  vindicate  their  inalienable  “right  to  life,  liberty 
ami  the  pursuit  of  happiness,” — this  clause  of  the  Constitution,  1 say 
distinctly,  1 never  will  support. 

That  part  of  the  Constitution  which  provides  for  the  surrender  of 
fugitive  slaves,  1 never  have  supported  and  never  will.  I will  join  in 
no  slave-hunt.  My  door  shall  stand  open,  as  it  has  long  stood,  for 
the  panting  and  trembling  victim  of  the  slave-hunter.  When  I shut 
it  against  him,  may  God  shut  the  door  of  his  mercy  against  me! 
Under  this  clause  of  the  Constitution,  and  designed  to  carry  it  into 
effect,  slavery  has  demanded  that  laws  should  be  passed,  and  of  such 
a character,  as  have  left  the  free  citizen  of  the  North  without  protec- 
tion for  his  own  liberty.  The  question,  whether  a man  seized  in  a 
free  State  as  a slave,  is  a slave  or  not,  the  law  of  Congress  does  not 
allow  a jury  to  determine  : hut  refers  it  to  the  decision  of  a Judge  of 
a United  .States’  Court,  or  even  of  the  humblest  State  magistrate,  it 
may  be,  upon  the  testimony  or  affidavit  of  the  party  most  deeply  in- 
terested to  support  the  claim.  By  virtue  of  this  law,  freemen  have 
been  seized  and  dragged  into  perpetual  slavery  — and  should  I be 
seized  by  a slave-lumter  in  any  part  of  the  country  where  1 am  not 
personally  known,  neither  the  Constitution  nor  laws  of  the  United 
States  would  shield  me  from  the  same  destiny. 

These,  sir,  are  the  specific  parts  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  which  in  my  opinion  are  essentially  vicious,  hostile  at  once  to 
the  liberty  and  to  the  morals  of  the  nation.  And  these  are  the  principal 
reasons  of  my  refusal  any  longer  to  acknowledge  my  allegiance  to  it, 
and  of  my  determination  to  revoke  my  oath  to  support  it.  1 cannot, 
in  order  to  keep  the  law  of  man,  break  the  law  of  God,  or  solemnly 
call  him  to  witness  my  promise  that  1 will  break  it. 

It  is  true  that  the  Constitution  provides  for  its  own  amendment, 
and  that  by  this  process,  all  the  guarantees  of  Slavery  may  be  ex- 
punged. But  it  will  be  time  enough  to  swear  to  support  it  when 
this  is  done.  It  cannot  be  right  to  do  so,  until  these  amendments 
are  made. 

It  is  also  true  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  did  studiously 


117 


keep  the  words  “ Slave  ” and  “ Slavery  ” from  its  face.  But  to  do 
our  constitutional  fathers  justice,  while  they  forebore  — from  very 
shame  — to  give  the  word  “Slavery”  a place  in  the  Constitution, 
they  did  not  forbear  — again  to  do  them  justice  — to  give  place  in  it 
to  the  thing.  They  were  careful  to  wrap  up  the  idea,  and  the  sub- 
stance of  Slavery,  in  the  clause  for  the  surrender  of  the  fugitive, 
though  they  sacrificed  justice  in  doing  so. 

There  is  abundant  evidence  that  this  clause  touching  “ persons  held 
to  service  or  labor,”  not  only  operates  practically,  under  the  judicial 
construction,  for  the  protection  of  the  slave  interest;  but  that  it  was 
intended  so  to  operate  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution.  The  high- 
est judicial  authorities  — Chief  Justice  Shaw,  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  Massachusetts,  in  the  Latimer  case,  and  Mr.  Justice  Story,  in  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  the  case  of  Prigg  vs.  The 
State  of  Pennsylvania, — tell  us,  1 know  not  on  what  evidence,  that 
without  this  “compromise,”  this  security  for  Southern  slaveholders, 
“the  Union  could  not  have  been  formed.”  And  there  is  still  higher 
evidence,  not  only  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  meant  by  this 
clause  to  protect  slavery,  but  that  they  did  this,  knowing  that  slavery 
was  wrong.  Mr.  Madison*  informs  us  that  the  clause  in  question,  as  it 
came  out  of  the  hands  of  Dr.  Johnson,  the  chairman  of  the  “commit- 
tee on  style,”  read  thus:  “No  person  legally  held  to  service,  or  labor, 
in  one  State,  escaping  into  another,  shall,”  &c.,  and  that  the  word  “ le- 
gally ” was  struck  out,  and  the  words  “ under  the  laws  thereof”  insert- 
ed after  the  word  “State,”  in  compliance  with  the  wish  of  some,  who 
thought  the  term  legal  equivocal,  and  favoring  the  idea  that  slavery  was 
legal  “ in  a moral  view.'’’  A conclusive  proof  that,  although  future  gen- 
erations might  apply  that  clause  to  other  kinds  of  “service  or  labor,” 
when  slavery  should  have  died  out,  or  been  killed  off  by  the  young 
spirit  of  liberty,  which  was  then  awake  and  at  work  in  the  land  ; still, 
slavery  was  what  they  were  wrapping  up  in  “equivocal  ” words;  and 
wrapping  it  up  for  its  protection  and  safe  keeping:  a conclusive  proof 
that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  were  more  careful  to  protect 
themselves  in  the  judgment  of  coming  generations,  from  the  charge  of 
ignorance,  than  of  sin  ; a conclusive  proof  that  they  knew  that  slavery 
was  not legal  in  a moral  view,”  that  it  was  a violation  of  the  moral 
law  of  God  ; and  yet  knowing  and  confessing  its  immorality,  they 
dared  to  make  this  stipulation  for  its  support  and  defence. 

This  language  may  sound  harsh  to  the  ears  of  those  who  think  it 
a part  of  their  duty,  as  citizens,  to  maintain  that  whatever  the  patriots 
of  the  Revolution  did,  was  right  ; and  who  hold  that  we  are  bound 
to  do  all  the  iniquity  that  they  covenanted  for  us  that  we  should  do. 
But  the  claims  of  truth  and  right  are  paramount  to  all  other  claims. 

With  all  our  veneration  for  our  constitutional  fathers,  we  must  ad- 
mit,— for  they  have  left  on  record  their  own  confession  of  it, — that 
in  this  part  of  their  work  they  intended  to  hold  the  shield  of  their  pro- 


Madison  Papers,  p.  1589. 


118 


tection  over  a wrong,  knowing  that  it  was  a wrong.  They  made  a 
“ compromise  ” which  they  hud  no  right  to  make — a compromise 
of  moral  principle  for  the  sake  of  what  they  probably  regarded  as 
“political  expediency.”  1 am  sure  they  did  not  know — no  man 
could  know,  or  can  now  measure,  the  extent,  or  the  consequences  of 
the  wrong  that  they  were  doing.  In  the  strong  language  of  John 
Quincy  Adams,*  in  relation  to  the  article  fixing  the  basis  of  represen- 
tation, “Little  did  the  members  of  the  Convention,  from  the  free 
States,  imagine  or  foresee  what  a sacrifice  to  Moloch  was  hidden 
under  the  mask  of  this  concession.” 

I verily  believe  that,  giving  all  due  consideration  to  the  benefits 
conferred  upon  this  nation  by  the  Constitution,  its  national  unity,  its 
swelling  masses  of  wealth,  its  power,  and  the  external  prosperity  of 
its  multiplying  millions;  yet  the  moral  injury  that  has  been  done,  by 
the  countenance  shown  to  slavery  by  holding  over  that  tremendous 
sin  the  shield  of  the  Constitution,  and  thus  breaking  down  in  the  eyes 
of  the  nation  the  barrier  between  right  and  wrong  ; by  so  tenderly 
cherishing  slavery  as,  in  less  than  the  life  of  man,  to  multiply  her 
children  from  half  a million  to  nearly  three  millions  ; by  exacting 
oaths  from  those  who  occupy  prominent  stations  in  society,  that  they 
will  violate  at  once  the  rights  of  tnan  and  the  law  of  God  ; by  substi- 
tuting itself  as  a rule  of  right,  in  place  of  the  moral  laws  of  the  uni- 
verse ; — thus  in  effect,  dethroning  the  Almighty  in  the  hearts  of  this 
people  and  setting  up  another  sovereign  in  his  stead  — more  than 
outweighs  it  all.  A melancholy  and  monitory  lesson  this,  to  all  time- 
serving and  temporising  statesmen!  A striking  illustration  of  the 
impolicy  of  sacrificing  right  to  any  considerations  of  expediency  ! Yet, 
what  better  than  the  evil  effects  that  we  have  seen,  could  the  authors 
of  the  Constitution  have  reasonably  expected,  from  the  sacrifice  of 
right,  in  the  concessions  they  made  to  slavery  ? Was  it  reasonable 
in  them  to  expect  that  after  they  had  introduced  a vicious  element 
into  the  very  Constitution  of  the  body  politic  which  they  were  calling 
into  life,  it  wotdd  not  exert  its  vicious  energies?  Was  it  reasonable 
in  them  to  expect  that,  after  slavery  had  been  corrupting  the  public 
morals  for  a whole  generation,  their  children  would  have  too  much 
vir.  i • to  use  for  the  defence  of  slavery,  a power  which  they  them- 
selves had  not  too  much  virtue  to  give  ? It  is  dangerous  for  the  sov- 
ereign power  of  a State  to  license  immorality;  to  hold  the  shield 
of  its  protection  over  any  thing  that  is  not  “legal  in  a moral 
view.”  Bring  into  your  house  a benumbed  viper,  and  lay  it  down 
upon  your  warm  hearth,  and  soon  it  will  not  ask  you  into  which  room 
it  may  crawl.  Let  Slavery  once  lean  upon  the  supporting  arm,  and 
bask  in  the  fostering  smile  of  the  State,  and  you  will  soon  see,  as  we 
now  see,  both  her  minions  and  her  victims  multiply  apace  till  the 
politics,  the  morals,  the  liberties,  even  the  religion  of  the  nation,  are 
brought  completely  under  her  control. 


* See  bis  Report  on  the  Massachusetts  Resolutions. 


119 


To  me,  it  appears  that  the  virus  of  slavery,  introduced  into  the 
Constitution  of  our  body  politic,  by  a few  slight  punctures,  has  now  so 
pervaded  and  poisoned  the  whole  system  of  our  National  Government, 
that  literally  there  is  no  health  in  it.  The  only  remedy  that  I can 
see  for  the  disease,  is  to  he  found  in  the  dissolution  of  the  patient. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  both  in  theory  and  prac- 
tice, is  so  utterly  broken  down  by  the  influence  and  effects  of  slavery, 
so  imbecile  for  the  highest  good  of  the  nation,  and  so  powerful  for 
evil,  that  I can  give  no  voluntary  assistance  in  holding  it  up  any 
longer. 

Henceforth  it  is  dead  to  me,  and  I to  it.  I withdraw  all  profession 
of  allegiance  to  it,  arid  all  my  voluntary  efforts  to  sustain  it.  The 
burdens  that  it  lays  upon  me,  while  it  is  held  up  by  others,  I shall 
endeavor  to  bear  patiently,  yet  acting  with  reference  to  a higher  law, 
and  distinctly  declaring,  that  while  I retain  my  own  liberty,  1 will  he 
a party  to  no  compact,  which  helps  to  rob  any  other  man  of  his. 

Very  respectfully,  your  friend, 

FRANCIS  JACKSON. 


FROM 

MR.  WEBSTER’S  SPEECH 

AT  NIBLO’S  GARDENS. 

“We  have  slavery,  already,  amongst  us.  The  Constitution  found 
it  among  us;  it  recognized  it  and  gave  it  SOLEMN  GUARANTIES. 
To  the  full  extent  of  these  guaranties  we  are  all  hound,  in  honor,  in 
justice,  and  by  the  Constitution.  All  the  stipulations,  contained  in 
the  Constitution,  in  favor  of  the  slaveholding  States  which  are  already 
in  the  Union,  ought  to  he  fulfilled,  and  so  far  as  depends  on  me,  shall 
be  fulfilled,  in  the  fulness  of  their  spirit,  and  to  the  exactness  of  their 
letter.”  ! ! ! 


EXTRACTS  FROM 

JOHN  Q.  ADAMS’S  ADDRESS 

AT  NORTH  BRIDGEWATER,  NOV.  6,  1844. 

The  benefits  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  were  the 
restoration  of  credit  and  reputation,  to  the  country — the  revival  of 
commerce,  navigation,  and  ship-building  — the  acquisition  of  the 
means  of  discharging  the  debts  of  the  Revolution,  and  the  protection 
and  encouragement  of  the  infant  and  drooping  manufactures  of  the 
country.  All  this,  however,  as  is  now  well  ascertained,  was  msuffi- 


120 


cient  to  propitiate  the  rulers  of  the  Southern  States  to  the  adoption 
of  the  Constitution.  What  they  specially  wanted  was  protection. — 
Protection  from  the  powerful  and  savage  tribes  of  Indians  within 
their  borders,  and  who  were  harrassing  them  with  the  most  terrible 
of  wars  — and  protection  from  their  own  negroes  — protection  from 
their  insurrections  — protection  from  their  escape  — protection  even 
to  the  trade  by  which  they  were  brought  into  the  country  — protec- 
tion, shall  1 not  blush  to  say,  protection  to  the  very  bondage  by  which 
they  were  held.  Yes!  it  cannot  be  denied  — the  slaveholding  lords 
of  the  South  prescribed,  as  a condition  of  their  assent  to  the  Consti- 
tution, three  special  provisions  to  secure  the  perpetuity  of  their  do- 
minion over  their  slaves.  The  first  was  the  immunity  for  twenty 
years  of  preserving  the  African  slave-trade  ; the  second  was  the  stip- 
ulation to  surrender  fugitive  slaves  — an  engagement  positively  pro- 
hibited by  the  laws  of  God,  delivered  from  Sinai  ; and  thirdly,  the 
exaction  fatal- to  the  principles  of  popular  representation,  of  a repre- 
sentation for  slaves — for  articles  of  merchandise,  under  the  name  of 
persons. 

The  reluctance  with  which  the  freemen  of  the  North  submitted  to 
the  dictation  of  these  conditions,  is  attested  by  the  awkward  and 
ambiguous  language  in  which  they  are  expressed.  The  word  slave 
is  most  cautiously  and  fastidiously  excluded  from  the  whole  instru- 
ment. A stranger,  who  should  come  from  a foreign  land,  and  read 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  would  not  believe  that  slavery 
or  a slave  existed  within  the  borders  of  our  country.  There  is  not  a 
word  in  the  Constitution  apparently  bearing  upon  the  condition  of 
slavery,  nor  is  there  a provision  but  would  be  susceptible  of  practical 
execution,  if  there  were  not  a slave  in  the  land. 

The  delegates  from  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  distinctly  avow- 
ed that,  without  this  guarantee  of  protection  to  their  property  in 
slaves,  they  would  not  yield  their  assent  to  the  Constitution  : and  the 
freemen  of  the  North,  reduced  to  the  alternative  of  departing  from 
the  vital  principle  of  their  liberty,  or  of  forfeiting  the  Union  itself, 
averted  their  faces,  and  with  trembling  hand  subscribed  the  bond. 

Twenty  years  passed  away  — the  slave  markets  of  the  South  were 
saturated  with  the  blood  of  African  bondage,  and  from  midnight  of 
the  31st  of  December,  1807,  not  a slave  from  Africa  was  suffered 
ever  more  to  be  introduced  upon  our  soil.  But  the  internal  traffic 
was  still  lawful,  and  the  breeding  States  soon  reconciled  themselves  to 
a prohibition  which  gave  them  the  monopoly  of  the  interdicted  trade, 
and  they  joined  the  full  chorus  of  reprobation,  to  punish  with  death 
the  slave-trader  from  Africa,  while  they  cherished  and  shielded  and 
enjoyed  the  precious  profits  of  the  American  slave-trade  exclusively 
to  themselves. 

Perhaps  this  unhappy  result  of  their  concession  had  not  altogether 
escaped  the  foresight  of  the  freemen  of  the  North  ; but  their  intense 
anxiety  for  the  preservation  of  the  whole  Union,  and  the  habit  alrea- 
dy formed  of  yielding  to  the  somewhat  peremptory  and  overbearing 


121 


tone  which  the  relation  of  master  and  slave  welds  into  the  nature  of 
the  lord,  prevailed  with  them  to  overlook  this  consideration,  the  in- 
ternal slave-trade  having  scarcely  existed  while  that 

been  allowed.  But  of  one  consequence  which  lias  i'oi ... 

the  slave  representation,  pervading  the  whole  organic  structure  fine 
Constitution,  they  certainly  were  not  prescient ; for  it  they  hud  been, 
never — no,  never  would  they  have  consented  to  it. 

The  representation,  ostensibly  of  slaves,  under  the  name  of  per- 
sons, was  in  its  operation  an  exclusive  grant  of  power  to  one  class  of 
proprietors,  owners  of  one  species  of  property,  to  the  detriment  of 
all  the  rest  of  the  community.  This  species  of  property  was  odious 
in  its  nature,  held  in  direct  violation  of  the  natural  and  inalienable 
rig'll ts  of  man,  and  of  the  vital  principles  of  Christianity;  it  was  all 
accumulated  in  one  geographical  section  of  the  country,  upd  was  all 
held  by  wealthy  men,  comparatively  small  in  numbers,  not  amount- 
ing to  a tenth  part  of  the  free  white  population  of  the  States  in  which 
it  was  concentrated. 

In  some  of  the  ancient,  and  in  some  modern  republics,  extraordi- 
nary political  power  and  privileges  have  been  invested  in  the  owners 
of  horses  ; but  then  these  privileges  and  these  powers  have  been 
granted  for  the  equivalent  of  extraordinary  duties  and  services  to  the 
community,  required  of  the  favored  class.  The  Roman  knights  con- 
stituted the  cavalry  of  their  armies,  and  the  bushels  of  rings  gather- 
ed by  Hannibal  from  their  dead  bodies,  after  the  battle  of  Canute, 
amply  prove  that  the  special  powers  conferred  upon  them  were  no 
gratuitous  grants.  But  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  the 
political  power  invested  in  the  owners  of  slaves  is  entirely  gratuitous. 
No  extraordinary  service  ie  rcrjnirsd  of"  them  , tVipv  CCTI- 

trary,  themselves  grievous  burdens  upon  the  community,  always 
threatened  with  the  danger  of  insurrections,  to  be  smothered  in  the 
blood  of  both  parties,  master  and  slave,  and  always  depressing  the 
condition  of  the  poor  free  laborer,  by  competition  with  the  labor  of 
the  slave.  The  property  in  horses  was  the  gift  of  God  to  man,  at 
the  creation  of  the  world ; the  property  in  slaves  is  property  acquir- 
, ed  and  held  by  crimes,  differing  in  no  moral  aspect  from  the  pillage 
of  a freebooter,  and  to  which  no  lapse  of  time  can  give  a prescriptive 
right.  You  are  told  that  this  is  no  concern  of  yours,  and  that  the 
question  of  freedom  and  slavery  is  exclusively  reserved  to  the  consi- 
deration of  the  separate  States.  But  if  it  be  so,  as  to  the  mere  ques- 
tion of  right  between  master  and  slave,  it  is  of  tremendous  concern 
to  you  that  this  little  cluster  of  slave-owners  should  possess,  besides 
their  own  share  in  the  representative  hull  of  the  nation,  the  exclusive 
privilege  of  appointing  two-fifths  of  the  whole  number  of  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  people.  This  is  now  your  condition,  under  that 
delusive  ambiguity  of  language  and  of  principle,  which  begins  by 
declaring  the  representation  in  the  popular  branch  of  the  legislature 
a representation  of  persons,  and  then  provides  that  one  class  of  per- 
sons shall  have  neither  part  nor  lot  in  the  choice  of  their  representa- 


122 


lives;  but  their  elective  franchise  shall  be  transferred  to  their  mas- 
ters, and  the  oppressors  shall  represent  the  oppressed.  The  same 
perversion  of  the  representative  principle  pollutes  the  composition  of 
the  colleges  of  electors  of  President  and  Vice  President  of  the  United 
States,  and  every  department  of  the  government  of  the  Union  is  thus 
tainted  at  its  source  by  the  gangrene  of  slavery. 

Fellow-citizens,  — with  a body  of  men  thus  composed,  for  legisla- 
tors and  executors  of  the  laws,  what  will,  what  must  he,  what  has 
been  your  legislation  ? The  numbers  of  freemen  constituting  your 
nation  are  much  greater  than  those  of  the  slaveholding  States,  bond 
and  free.  You  have  at  least  three-fifths  of  the  whole  population  of 
the  Union.  Your  influence  on  the  legislation  and  the  administration 
of  the  government  ought  to  be  in  the  proportion  of  three  to  two.  — 
But  how  stands  the  fact  ? Besides  the  legitimate  portion  of  influ- 
ence exercised  by  the  slaveholding  States  by  the  measure  of  their 
numbers,  here  is  an  intrusive  influence  in  every  department,  by  a re 
presentation  nominally  of  persons,  but  really  of  property,  ostensibly 
of  slaves,  but  effectively  of  their  masters,  overbalancing  your  superi- 
ority of  numbers,  adding  two-fifths  of  supplementary  power  to  the 
two-fifths  fairly  secured  to  them  bv  the  compact,  CONTROLLING 
AND  OVERRULING  T1IE  WHOLE  ACTION  OF  YOUR  GOV- 
ERNMENT AT  HOME  AND  ABROAD,  and  warping  it  to  the 
sordid  private  interest  and  oppressive  policy  of  300,000  owners 
of  slaves. 

From  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  the  institution  of  domestic  slavery  has  been  becoming  more 
and  more  the  abhorrence  of  the  civilized  world.  But  in  proportion 
as  it  has  been  growing  odious  to  all  the  rest  of  mankind,  it  has  been 
sinking  deeper  and  deeper  into  the  affections  of  the  holders  of  slaves 
themselves.  The  cultivation  of  cotton  and  of  sugar,  unknown  in  the 
Union  at  the  establishment  of  the  Constitution,  has  added  largely  to 
the  pecuniary  value  of  the  slave.  And  the  suppression  of  the  Afri- 
can slave-trade  as  piracy  upon  pain  of  death,  by  securing  the  benefit 
of  a monopoly  to  the  virtuous  slaveholders  of  the  ancient  dominion, 
has  turned  her  heroic  tyrannicides  into  a community  of  slave-breed- 
ers for  sale,  and  converted  the  land  of  George  Washington,  Patrick 
Henry,  Richard  Henry  Lee,  and  Thomas  Jefferson,  into  a great  bar- 
racoon — a cattle-show  of  human  beings,  an  emporium,  of  which  the 
staple  articles  of  merchandise  are  the  flesh  and  blood,  the  bones  and 
sinews  of  immortal  man. 

Of  the  inereasing<ah<ypination  of  slavery  in  the  unbought  hearts  of 
men  at  the  time  when  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was 
formed,  what  clearer  proof  could  be  desired,  than  that  the  very  same 
year  in  which  that  charter  of  the  land  was  issued,  the  Congress  of 
the  Confederation,  with  not  a tithe  of  the  powers  given  by  the  people 
to  the  Congress  of  the  new  compact,  actually  abolished  slavery  for- 
ever throughout  the  whole  Northwestern  territory,  without  a remon- 
strance or  a murmur.  But  in  the  articles  of  confederation,  there  was 


J - 


' 


123 

no  -uaranty  for  the  property  of  the  slaveholder — no  double  repre- 
1 sent&ion  of  him  in  the  Federal  councils  — no  power  of  taxation  — 
no  stimulation  for  the  recovery  of  fugitive  slaves.  But  when  the 
powers  of  government  came  to  be  delegated  to  the  Union,  the  South 
— that  i?)  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  — refused  their  subscription 
to  the  pa-chment,  till  it  should  be  saturated  with  the  infection  of 
slavery,  which  no  fumigation  could  purify,  no  quarantine  could  ex- 
tinguish. 'Ihe  freemen  of  the  North  gave  way,  and  the  deadly  venom 
of  slavery  was  infused  into  the  Constitution  of  freedom.  Its  first  con- 
sequence has  been  to  invert  the  first  principle  of  Democracy,  that  the 
will  of  the  majority  of  numbers  shall  rule  the  land.  By  means  of 
the  double  representation,  the  minority  command  the  whole,  and  a 
KNOT  OF  SLAVEHOLDERS  GIVE  THE  LAW  AND  PRE- 
SCRIBE THE  POLICY  OF  THE  COUNTRY.  To  acquire  this 
superiority  of  a large  majority  of  freemen,  a persevering  system  of 
engrossing  nearly  all  the  seats  of  power  and  place,  is  constantly  for 
■ a long  series  of  years  pursued,  and  you  have  seen,  in  a period  of 
fifty-six  years,  the  Chief-magistracy  of  the  Union  held,  during  forty- 
four  of  them,  by  the  owners  of  slaves.  The  Executive  departments, 
the  Army  and  Navy,  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court  and  diplomatic 
missions  abroad,  all  present  the  same  spectacle  ; — an  immense  ma- 
jority of  power  in  the  hands  of  a very  small  minority  of  the  people 
— millions  made  for  a fraction  of  a few  thousands. 

# % & % # # 

From  that  day  (1830,)  SLAVERY,  SLAVEHOLDING,  SLAVE- 
BREEDING  AND  SLAVE-TRADING,  HAVE  FORMED  THE 
WHOLE  FOUNDATION  OF  THE  POLICY  OF  THE  FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT,  and  of  the  siaveiidiciing  States,  at  home  and 
abroad  ; and  at  the  very  time  when  a new  census  has  exhibited  a 
i larse  increase  upon  the  superior  numbers  of  the  free  States,  it  has 
I presented  the  portentous  evidence  of  increased  influence  and  ascend- 
ancy of  the  slaveholding  power. 

Of  the  prevalence  of  that  power,  you  have  had  continual  and  con- 
clusive evidence  in  the  suppression  for  the  space  of  ten  years  ol  the 
right  of  petition,  guarantied,  if  there  could  be  a guarantee  against 
slavery,  by  the  first  article  amendatory  of  the  Constitution. 


Date  Due 


CONTENTS. 


Introduction  . 

Debates  in  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation 
Debates  in  the  Federal  Convention  . • • 

List  of  Members  of  the  Federal  Convention 

Speech  of  Luther  Martin 

Debates  in  State  Conventions. 

Massachusetts  • 

New  York  . 

Pennsylvania  • 

Virginia  . 

North  Carolina  . : 

South  Carolina  ...... 

Extracts  from  the  Federalist  . . . . . 

Debates  in  First  Congress  .... 

Address  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  American  Anti- 
Slavery  Society  . 

Letter  from  Francis  Jackson  to  Gov.  Briggs 
Extract  from  Mr.  Webster’s  Speech  . 

Extracts  from  J.  Q.  Adams’s  Address,  November,  1844 


Page 

3 

9 

14 

33 

35 

39 

43 

46 

48 

61 

65 

67 

93 

112 

llt- 

119i 


boston: 

MUHTED  B S'  TAVID  n.  £Li 
so.  37,  COKNHILE. 


- 


iiifNAi 

D00500886R 


- ■ 


